data_id
int64 1
1.12M
| id
stringlengths 32
138
| date
timestamp[s] | source
stringlengths 2
24
| title
stringlengths 12
203
| content
stringlengths 32
65.4k
⌀ | author
stringlengths 2
242
⌀ | url
stringlengths 27
244
| published
stringlengths 14
32
| published_utc
int64 1.55B
1.58B
| collection_utc
int64 1.57B
1.58B
| category_level_1
stringclasses 17
values | category_level_2
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
770,736 |
theindependent--2019-09-07--Trump calls off Afghanistan peace talks after claiming he was due to meet Taliban at Camp David
| 2019-09-07T00:00:00 |
theindependent
|
Trump calls off Afghanistan peace talks after claiming he was due to meet Taliban at Camp David
|
Donald Trump has publicly called off US peace talks with Afghanistan after claiming he was due to hold a “secret” meeting with Taliban leaders at Camp David. Writing on Twitter, Mr Trump said he had been due to meet both members of the militant Islamist group and the president of Afghanistan at the presidential retreat in Maryland on Sunday. However, he announced he had decided to call off the negotiations after the Taliban claimed credit for a car bomb in Kabul earlier this week, which left 12 dead, including one US soldier. “Unbeknownst to almost everyone, the major Taliban leaders and, separately, the President of Afghanistan, were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Sunday,” Mr Trump wrote. “They were coming to the United States tonight. Unfortunately, in order to build false leverage, they admitted to an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great great soldiers, and 11 other people. “I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations. What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?” The president added: “If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway. How many more decades are they willing to fight?” Mr Trump’s decision to pull out of talks came just days after the US’s top negotiator for peace in Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, said the two sides were close to a deal to end America’s longest war.. A draft framework agreement had been drawn up under which US troops would leave five military bases in Afghanistan within 135 days of the signing of the pact. In return, the Taliban would be expected to guarantee the country will not be used as a launchpad for global terrorist operations. However, the Taliban has carried out several deadly attacks across Afghanistan in recent weeks while talks with US envoys have been ongoing. The attacks are seen as strengthening the negotiating position of the Taliban, who control or hold sway over roughly half of Afghanistan and are at their strongest since their 2001 defeat by a US-led invasion. But some critics have warned the Taliban was merely waiting out the US and that another American goal in the talks, a ceasefire, will probably not happen as foreign troops leave.
|
Tom Barnes
|
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-taliban-meeting-camp-david-afghanistan-peace-talks-off-a9096191.html
|
2019-09-07 23:16:00+00:00
| 1,567,912,560 | 1,569,330,886 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
770,835 |
theindependent--2019-09-08--Taliban say peace deal breakdown with Donald Trump aposwill harm America more than anyone elseapo
| 2019-09-08T00:00:00 |
theindependent
|
Taliban say peace deal breakdown with Donald Trump 'will harm America more than anyone else'
|
The Taliban has warned Donald Trump’s decision to cancel peace negotiations with the militant group after a car bomb claimed the life of a US soldier would increase America’s “human losses”. Mr Trump confirmed he would not attend a planned meeting with Taliban leaders and the president of Afghanistan in a tweet on Sunday after the militant group took credit for a car bomb in Kabul that claimed the lives of 12 people including a US soldier. The president tweeted: “I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations. What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?” The Taliban have warned that Mr Trump’s decision to cancel their agreement would “harm America more than anyone else”. A spokesman for the militant group said talks, which had been ongoing for a year, had been completed “in a favourable atmosphere”, adding that the scrapping of the deal “will damage [America’s] status, will make it clear to the world its most hostile stance for peace, will increase its material and human losses, and its role will be known as shaky and fragile in political dealings”. Before the president’s announcement the meeting between members of the Afghan government, the Taliban and US officials, scheduled to take place in his Camp David residence, had been a closely guarded secret. But critics in the US denounced Mr Trump’s decision to hold the talks on the week of the 18th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. The Taliban harboured al-Qaeda members before the attack, providing a safe base of operations for the group making up a key reason for the US war in Afghanistan of 2001. Since the invasion, and with US military involvement dramatically reduced in the country from a height of 100,000 in 2010 to 14,000 in 2019, the Taliban has been able to regain a significant foothold across the country. Around 14.5 per cent of Afghanistan is considered to be under the militant group’s control, compared to the 56.3 per cent of the country overseen by the Afghan government. While growing in stature, the Taliban has continued to campaign for a complete withdrawal of US troops in Afghanistan, where there has been a US military presence for 18 years. A draft framework agreement drawn up by the three parties had paved the way for US troops to leave five military bases in Afghanistan within 135 days, with the Taliban guaranteeing in return that the country would not be used as a launch pad for global terror. Afghanistan’s government has remained sceptical of the talks, while the possibility of an accord has placed pressure on the election campaign of President Ashraf Ghani, which is due to take place next month.
|
Vincent Wood
|
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/taliban-trump-afghanistan-usa-peace-talks-kabul-bomb-a9096791.html
|
2019-09-08 15:32:00+00:00
| 1,567,971,120 | 1,569,330,777 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
812,577 |
thenewyorktimes--2019-02-28--Under Peace Plan US Military Would Exit Afghanistan Within Five Years
| 2019-02-28T00:00:00 |
thenewyorktimes
|
Under Peace Plan, U.S. Military Would Exit Afghanistan Within Five Years
|
WASHINGTON — All American troops would withdraw from Afghanistan over the next three to five years under a new Pentagon plan being offered in peace negotiations that could lead to a government in Kabul that shares power with the Taliban. The rest of the international force in Afghanistan would leave at the same time, after having mixed success in stabilizing the country since 2001. The plan is being discussed with European allies and was devised, in part, to appeal to President Trump, who has long expressed skepticism of enduring American roles in wars overseas. The plan calls for cutting by half, in coming months, the 14,000 American troops currently in Afghanistan. It would task the 8,600 European and other international troops with training the Afghan military — a focus of the NATO mission for more than a decade — and largely shift American operations to counterterrorism strikes. [For more stories about the experiences and costs of war, sign up for the weekly At War newsletter.] Various elements of the plan were shared with The New York Times by more than a half-dozen current and former American and European officials. It intends to help talks with the Taliban that are being led by Zalmay Khalilzad, the American special envoy.
|
THOMAS GIBBONS-NEFF and JULIAN E. BARNES
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/us/politics/afghanistan-military-withdrawal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
|
2019-02-28 22:58:04+00:00
| 1,551,412,684 | 1,567,547,014 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
830,139 |
therightscoop--2019-12-29--Taliban agrees to ceasefire with U.S., will begin peace negotiations
| 2019-12-29T00:00:00 |
therightscoop
|
Taliban agrees to ceasefire with U.S., will begin peace negotiations
|
The Taliban has agreed to a temporary ceasefire to make room for peace negotiations with the U.S. Here’s more from the AP: The Taliban’s ruling council agreed Sunday to a temporary cease-fire in Afghanistan, providing a window in which a peace agreement with the United States can be signed, officials from the insurgent group said. They didn’t say when it would begin. A cease-fire had been demanded by Washington before any peace agreement could be signed. A peace deal would allow the U.S. to bring home its troops from Afghanistan and end its 18-year military engagement there, America’s longest. There was no immediate response from Washington. The U.S. wants any deal to include a promise from the Taliban that Afghanistan would not be used as a base by terrorist groups. The U.S. currently has an estimated 12,000 troops in Afghanistan. I could see Trump going for a ceasefire. He is definitely down on the Afghanistan War, and has signaled this many times. Including this report: Months after becoming president in 2017, Donald Trump began taking meetings with enlisted U.S. service members who deployed to Afghanistan in order to get a better understanding of America’s longest war. “I want to sit down with some enlisted guys that have been there,” Trump told advisers, according to the national-security journalist Peter Bergen’s latest book, Trump and His Generals: The Cost of Chaos. “I don’t want any generals in here. I don’t want any officers,” Trump added, according to Bergen’s book, which is sourced from dozens of interviews with current and former White House officials and military officers. “I just want enlisted guys.” I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this account was leaked right ahead of the peace negotiations with the Taliban….
|
SooperMexican
|
https://therightscoop.com/taliban-agrees-to-ceasefire-with-u-s-will-begin-peace-negotiations/
|
Sun, 29 Dec 2019 20:54:50 +0000
| 1,577,670,890 | 1,577,665,194 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
1,066,270 |
unian--2019-12-05--U.S. stands with Ukraine as country moves forward with peace talks – State Department
| 2019-12-05T00:00:00 |
unian
|
U.S. stands with Ukraine as country moves forward with peace talks – State Department
|
Washington is committed to keep pressuring Russia to live up to its commitments under the Minsk Agreements. In the lead-up to the Normandy Format meeting, Acting Assistant Secretary Reeker emphasized that the United States stands with Ukraine as it moves forward with peace negotiations, the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv reports. "Secretary of State [Mike] Pompeo asked me to travel to Ukraine to assure you, the people of Ukraine, that the United States steadfastly supports Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity in the leadup to the December 9th Normandy Format Summit," U.S. Acting Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip T. Reeker said in a video address the U.S. Embassy published on Twitter, showing him laying flowers at the memorial of the Heavenly Hundred Heroes at the Maidan in Kyiv. "Ukraine's success in the face of Russia's unacceptable and illegal aggression, and a challenging agenda of crucial reforms matters deeply to the United States and to all those around the world who stand for democratic values," the acting assistant secretary emphasized. He reiterated the U.S. commitment, along with allies and partners, to "keep pressuring Russia to live up to its commitments under the Minsk Agreements."
| null |
https://www.unian.info/politics/10782320-u-s-stands-with-ukraine-as-country-moves-forward-with-peace-talks-state-department.html
|
Thu, 05 Dec 2019 21:00:00 +0200
| 1,575,597,600 | 1,575,593,495 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
1,073,656 |
usatoday--2019-09-08--Trump suspends Afghanistan peace talks after attack cancels secret Camp David meeting
| 2019-09-08T00:00:00 |
usatoday
|
Trump suspends Afghanistan peace talks after attack, cancels secret Camp David meeting
|
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said Saturday he canceled a secret Camp David meeting with Taliban leaders and is suspending Afghanistan peace negotiations after the group claimed responsibility for a car bomb this week that killed an American and 11 others. The president said that Taliban leaders and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani were preparing to travel to the United States this weekend, presumably to finalize an agreement that has been in the works for months to reduce U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Instead, Trump said he abruptly canceled the meeting following the Taliban attack. "I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations," Trump wrote in a tweet Saturday.“What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?” Trump disclosed that he had planned to meet with Taliban and Afghan officials on Sunday at Camp David, near the 18-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Trump instead accused Taliban officials of trying to "build false leverage" ahead of those talks with the bombing. Trump has said he wants to pull thousands of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. His administration has been negotiating with the Taliban to reduce the roughly 14,000 troops now in Afghanistan. A U.S. envoy said on Monday that an initial agreement had been reached to achieve that goal, but Trump remained noncommittal about his support. More than 2,400 American soldiers have been killed in the war, according to the most recent figures from the Pentagon. As recently as Thursday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the U.S. had “delivered” on its promises in Afghanistan and seemed to defend the emerging agreement. “If you go back and look at the days following 9/11, the objectives set out were pretty clear: to go defeat al-Qaida, the group that had launched the attack on the United States of America from Afghanistan,” Pompeo said in an interview with a conservative website. “And today, al-Qaida … doesn’t even amount to a shadow of its former self in Afghanistan … We have delivered.” The State Department referred questions about Trump's announcement to the White House. Trump's desire to reduce America's military presence in Afghanistan has been fraught with political and military peril. Critics – including some of Trump's strongest supporters – fear a U.S. withdrawal will open the door for a resurgence of al-Qaida, as well as other terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan, such as the Islamic State. The president is also under pressure to avoid a hasty agreement in order to achieve his campaign promise to reduce troop levels. That pressure has come from Afghan leaders, some Republican members of Congress and also hawks within his White House. "This will make President Ghani happy but will slow down hopes for an early September deal," said Aaron David Miller, a diplomat who has worked for administrations of both parties. "Bottom line – there are no good withdrawal deals. If Trump wants out, (it's) likely a choice between bad and worse.” Two NATO services members, including an American, were among a dozen people killed in the attack in Kabul on Thursday. Brett Bruen, a former foreign service officer and global engagement director for President Barack Obama, expressed shock that any American president would invite the Taliban, a militant Islamic group that has targeted American soldiers throughout the war, to the U.S. "Coming to the United States, let alone to a presidential retreat, is a prize saved for when real concessions have been made," Bruen told USA TODAY. "As we have seen in North Korea, Trump’s negotiations with our adversaries are marked by their preference for style over strategy. Ultimately it is a recipe for damaging our influence and the prospects for peace." Trump's assertion that the car bombing prompted him to cut off talks seemed odd, given that the Taliban have been engaging in such violent attacks all through the current negotiations. Miller suggested there may have been more at play than Thursday's attack. “It’s clear he’s coming under pressure from Pompeo and (National Security Adviser John) Bolton to avoid a hasty agreement that has U.S. making most of the concessions and the Taliban very few," he said. Ned Price, a National Security Council spokesman for Obama, said Trump's actions are likely to undercut the negotiating process. “What we heard from Trump today was his attempt to subvert and sensationalize the process, taking over for political gain a true diplomatic process that, by all accounts, had made genuine progress,” Price said. “All of those diplomatic gains may now be in jeopardy,” he added. Military leaders have resisted Trump's push for a full, speedy withdrawal. When asked about the potential peace deal last week, Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that he’s "not using the withdrawal word." There are about 22,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan now, 14,000 of them Americans. Dunford stressed that an agreement with the Taliban would be "conditions based," a term favored by commanders who oppose deadlines for the drawdown of troops. The emerging peace agreement also leaves major questions unresolved, most notably what role the Afghan government, which is backed by the U.S., will play in the future of the country. The Taliban had so far refused to negotiate with Ghani, demanding the complete withdrawal of all foreign military forces first. It's not clear if those two parties could come to any power-sharing agreement. The Taliban already controls a large swath of the country, and the Afghan government remains heavily dependent on the U.S. military for its security, according to a recent analysis by Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats. Asked about the emerging agreement on Wednesday, Trump declined to commit. "We’re talking to the Taliban. We’re talking to the government. We’ll see if we can do something," Trump told reporters at the White House. "We have great soldiers. But they’re not acting as soldiers. They’re acting as policemen and that’s not their job."
|
John Fritze, Deirdre Shesgreen and David Jackson, USA TODAY
|
http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/~/606555934/0/usatodaycomwashington-topstories~Trump-suspends-Afghanistan-peace-talks-after-attack-cancels-secret-Camp-David-meeting/
|
2019-09-08 11:51:28+00:00
| 1,567,957,888 | 1,569,330,768 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
1,074,970 |
usatoday--2019-11-28--Trump announces resuming peace talks with Taliban during surprise visit to troops in Afghanistan
| 2019-11-28T00:00:00 |
usatoday
|
Trump announces resuming peace talks with Taliban during surprise visit to troops in Afghanistan
|
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump announced he restarted peace talks with the Taliban during a surprise visit to soldiers Thursday at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, his first visit to the country since becoming president. Trump spent about 2 1/2 hours at the military base, where he served turkey to soldiers in a dining hall, posed for photos, delivered brief remarks and met with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, according to press pool reports. The president arrived at Bagram Airfield, the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan, around 8:30 p.m. local time. The trip, Trump's second visit to a combat zone, comes as he faces threats to his presidency back home. A fast-moving impeachment inquiry yielded testimony about the Trump administration's efforts to push Ukraine to announce investigations that could have been politically beneficial to Trump in 2020. Trump announced the restart of peace negotiations with the Taliban during a bilateral meeting with Ghani. The two presidents sat at one end of the room at the military headquarters, where four alternating U.S. and Afghan flags were erected behind the two leaders, according to pool reports. "The Taliban wants to make a deal – we’ll see if they make a deal. If they do, they do, and if they don’t, they don’t. That's fine," Trump told reporters. The president reiterated his desire to reduce the number of American troops in Afghanistan to 8,600, a figure he cited in announcing a major withdrawal in August. The United States has less than 14,000 troops in Afghanistan; military officials would not confirm the exact number. The move would reduce troop levels to one of the lowest points in the history of the war. U.S. troops swelled to nearly 100,000 at the highest mark in 2011 and dipped to 8,300 in 2017. Peace talks were upended in September, when Trump canceled a secret summit with the Taliban, Ghani and other Afghan officials after the militant group killed a U.S. soldier. The meeting was to finalize an agreement that had been in the works for months to reduce U.S. forces in Afghanistan and would have taken place at Camp David two days before the 18th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Trump said "it was not a good thing" that the group killed the soldier, who was from Puerto Rico. During a speech greeted with cheers and chants of "USA! USA!" Trump told soldiers that his administration had eradicated the Islamic State's territorial caliphate despite warnings of the terrorist group's resurgence. A report released by the Pentagon on October found that the Islamic State is rebuilding itself in Syria, where Trump ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops in October. The decision allowed Turkey's incursion into the region and left vulnerable Kurdish forces that had worked with the United States to roll back gains made by terrorists. Before the meeting with Ghani, Trump served turkey to about two dozen troops in a dining hall decorated with red, orange and yellow banners, according to pool reports. "I’ll be talking to you later, but right now I want to have some turkey," Trump told soldiers as he joined a table of service members at the hall, where 500 troops ate their Thanksgiving meal. Trump sat down to eat a plate of turkey, mashed potatoes and cornbread, according to pool reports. White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham, who accompanied Trump on the trip, said the visit had been planned for months. Reporters traveling with the president were not told of the destination until two hours before landing. They were barred from reporting on the trip until the visit was nearly over. "It’s a dangerous area and he wants to support the troops," Grisham told reporters. "He and Mrs. Trump recognize that there’s a lot of people far away from their families during the holidays and we thought it’d be a nice surprise." Trump had initially flown to his Mar-a-Lago resort, but he flew out of an undisclosed airport in Florida on Wednesday evening and landed at Joint Andrews Base, where he boarded Air Force One, according to pool reports. First lady Melania Trump stayed behind in Florida. Vice President Mike Pence made a surprise visit to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq last week to serve a Thanksgiving dinner to troops. Last year, Trump made a surprise visit to troops in Iraq, where he defended his decision to withdraw troops from Syria. The trip last December was Trump's first encounter with soldiers serving under his command in a combat zone.
|
Kristine Phillips and Courtney Subramanian, USA TODAY
|
http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/~/610418372/0/usatodaycomwashington-topstories~Trump-announces-resuming-peace-talks-with-Taliban-during-surprise-visit-to-troops-in-Afghanistan/
|
Thu, 28 Nov 2019 21:47:43 +0000
| 1,574,995,663 | 1,575,137,777 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
468,082 |
rferl--2019-02-13--UN Official Says Peace Negotiations For Ukraine Have Lost Momentum
| 2019-02-13T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
UN Official Says Peace Negotiations For Ukraine Have 'Lost Momentum'
|
A top UN official said the negotiations aimed at implementing the 2015 Minsk accords and ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine have lost momentum. Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca made the comment in a speech before the UN Security Council on February 12, at an event marking the fourth anniversary of the accords. Jenca said negotiations "appear to have lost momentum" and that neither Russia nor Ukraine appear to be willing to agree on key steps forward. The conflict, which erupted in 2014 at around the same time that Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula, has killed more than 10,000 people and displaced more than 1 million. The fighting pits Ukrainian government troops and allied militias against fighters that Western officials say have been funded and equipped by Russian military units. Signed roughly a year after full-scale fighting erupted, the Minsk accords laid out a blueprint of political steps, including elections, that would end the conflict. Both Russia and Ukraine have blamed each other for the failure to implement the agreement. The United States was not directly involved in the Minsk negotiations but has had a special envoy dedicated to resolving the fighting. That envoy, Kurt Volker, said in a post on Twitter that Russia continued to violate the agreement. "In the four years since [Minsk], Russia has continued to violate the Minsk agreements every day. It's time for Peace for Ukraine," he wrote. Russia's UN envoy, meanwhile, accused the West of using Ukraine as a pawn in a geopolitical chess game. "Unfortunately, it is obvious to us that the West is not interested in Ukraine itself, in its fate and well-being of its citizens," Vasily Nebenzya was quoted by the state news agency TASS as saying. "For them, this country is a mere pawn in the geopolitical confrontation with Russia." The five current European Union members on the Security Council issued a joint statement accusing Russia of continuing to fuel the conflict. "We call on Russia to immediately stop fueling the conflict by providing financial and military support to armed foundations," the statement said.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/un-ukraine-conflict-minsk-accord/29767153.html
|
2019-02-13 05:19:06+00:00
| 1,550,053,146 | 1,567,548,696 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
1,017,046 |
thetelegraph--2019-10-07--Taliban commanders released as hopes rise for resumption of US peace negotiations
| 2019-10-07T00:00:00 |
thetelegraph
|
Taliban commanders released as hopes rise for resumption of US peace negotiations
|
Hopes are rising for the resumption of the abandoned Taliban and US peace talks after eleven senior Taliban members were freed from prison in an exchange with three kidnapped Indian engineers. Among those freed are two former provincial governors of the Taliban and Abdul Rashid Baluch, a notorious regional leader sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for trafficking opium. The men were being held near Bagram air base outside Kabul. It is believed American authorities must have given permission for the swap as Baluch was previously on their ‘Specially Designated Global Terrorist’ list. Last month, Donald Trump cancelled over a year’s worth of on-going peace negotiations with the Taliban after the group claimed a Kabul bomb attack that killed 11 people, including an American soldier. However, relations appear to be thawing again after Zalmay Khalilzad, the Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation at the State Department, met senior Taliban leaders on Friday for clandestine talks in Islamabad. It is unclear whether the exchange of the Taliban leaders was discussed during the meeting. While the Afghan authorities do intermittently release prisoners early as gestures of goodwill it is rare to see such high-profile members of the Taliban freed. Abdul Rashid Baluch was a regional official for the group in the southwestern province of Nimroz when he was apprehended while personally escorting an almost one-tonne consignment of opium in 2014.
|
Joe Wallen
|
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/07/taliban-commanders-released-hopes-rise-resumption-us-peace-negotiations/
|
Mon, 07 Oct 2019 18:34:35 GMT
| 1,570,487,675 | 1,570,546,516 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
469,567 |
rferl--2019-06-19--Khalilzad US Seeking Peace Agreement With Taliban Not Withdrawal Deal
| 2019-06-19T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
Khalilzad: U.S. Seeking 'Peace Agreement' With Taliban, Not 'Withdrawal' Deal
|
KABUL -- The U.S. envoy seeking a peace deal with the Afghan Taliban has said Washington is seeking a “comprehensive peace agreement, not a withdrawal agreement” in its talks with the Taliban. Zalmay Khalilzad tweeted the comments late on June 18 after a spokesman for the Taliban's political office in Qatar, Suhail Shaheen, wrote in a tweet that the United States had agreed to withdraw all its troops from Afghanistan. Khalilzad has held six rounds of talks with the militant group in Qatar to end the nearly 18-year war in Afghanistan. The sides have made progress, but the Taliban has so far rejected direct negotiations with the Western-backed government in Kabul. “As we prepare for the next round of talks with the Taliban, important to remember we seek a comprehensive peace agreement, NOT a withdrawal agreement,” Khalilzad tweeted. The U.S. envoy wrote in a separate tweet that such an agreement would include “counter-terrorism assurances, troop withdrawal, intra-Afghan negotiations that lead to a political settlement; and a comprehensive & permanent ceasefire." “This is a framework which the Taliban accept,” he added. Khalilzad also reiterated that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/khalilzad-u-s-seeking-peace-agreement-with-taliban-not-withdrawal-deal/30008809.html
|
2019-06-19 15:19:29+00:00
| 1,560,971,969 | 1,567,538,773 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
484,707 |
skynewsus--2019-01-28--US and Taliban reach agreement in principle on Afghan peace deal
| 2019-01-28T00:00:00 |
skynewsus
|
US and Taliban reach 'agreement in principle' on Afghan peace deal
|
US and Taliban reach 'agreement in principle' on Afghanistan peace deal US and Taliban reach 'agreement in principle' on Afghanistan peace deal More than 2,400 American soldiers have died in the war in Afghanistan The US and the Taliban have reached "agreements in principle" on a peace deal - igniting hopes of ending more than 17 years of war in Afghanistan. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has assured his people that their rights will not be compromised in the name of peace with the Taliban, which has been staging near-daily attacks against Afghan forces. Six days of talks between the US and the Taliban were held last week in Qatar, where the Islamic insurgent group was urged to enter into direct negotiations with Mr Ghani's government. Senior US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad said the framework of a peace deal - "which still has to be fleshed out" - would see Taliban insurgents commit to guaranteeing that Afghan territory is not used as a "platform for international terrorist groups or individuals". He added that the deal could lead to a full pullout of US troops in return for a ceasefire and Taliban talks with the Afghan government. Striking a note of caution, Mr Khalilzad added: "There is a lot more work to be done before we can say we have succeeded in our efforts but I believe for the first time I can say that we have made significant progress." Mr Ghani has urged the Taliban - which until now has refused to deal with him and described him as a US "puppet" - to "accept the call of the people" and commence "serious talks" with his government. Acting US defence secretary Patrick Shanahan described the talks as "encouraging", while NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said any discussion about the withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan would be premature. Mr Stoltenberg added: "We are in Afghanistan to create the conditions for a peaceful negotiated solution. "We will not stay longer than necessary, but we will not leave before we have a situation that enables us to leave or reduce the number of troops without jeopardising the main goal of our presence and that is to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for international terrorists once again." More than 3,400 allied military personnel (more than 2,400 of them Americans) have died in the war since 2001, when a US-led international force invaded to pursue al Qaeda, the terror group behind the 9/11 attacks. An estimated 45,000 Afghan security personnel have lost their lives over the same period. The US has about 14,000 troops in the country, most of which are present as part of a larger NATO-led mission to train, advise and assist Afghan forces. The Taliban ran Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, and currently controls nearly half of the country.
| null |
http://news.sky.com/story/us-and-taliban-reach-agreement-in-principle-on-afghanistan-peace-deal-11620858
|
2019-01-28 21:24:00+00:00
| 1,548,728,640 | 1,567,550,613 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
495,929 |
sottnet--2019-01-28--More on the US-Taliban peace agreement framework
| 2019-01-28T00:00:00 |
sottnet
|
More on the US-Taliban peace agreement framework
|
U.S. and Taliban officials have agreed in principle to the "framework" of a peace deal, The New York Times quotes U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad as saying after five days of talks between the militant group and the United States in Qatar.Both sides have said "progress" had been made in the talks aimed at ending the 17-year conflict in Afghanistan.The New York Times quoted Khalilzad as saying on January 28 in an interview in Kabul.In the framework,That could lead to a full pullout of U.S. combat troops,The Taliban "committed, to our satisfaction, to do what is necessary that would prevent Afghanistan from ever becoming a platform for international terrorist groups or individuals," Khalilzad was quoted as saying."We felt enough confidence that we said we need to get this fleshed out, and details need to be worked out," he added, according to The New York Times.The Western-backed government in Kabul has struggled to fend off a resurgent Taliban and other militant groups.In a televised address on January 28, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani called on the Taliban to enter "serious" negotiations with the government in Kabul and "accept Afghans' demand for peace.""Either they join the great nation of Afghanistan with a united voice, or be the tool of foreign objectives," he told the militant group.Ghani spoke after Khalilzad briefed him and other Afghan officials in Kabul on the six-day talks he held with Taliban representatives in the Qatari capital, Doha, last week.The president's office quoted Khalilzad as saying"The U.S. insisted in their talks with the Taliban that the only solution for lasting peace in Afghanistan is intra-Afghan talks," Khalilzad said, according to a statement. "My role is to facilitate" such talks between the insurgents and Kabul, Khalilzad was quoted as saying.The U.S. envoy said on January 26 that the United States and the Taliban had made "significant progress," adding that the Doha talks were "more productive than they have been in the past."He also emphasized that the sides "have a number of issues left to work out," and that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said that while there was "progress" at the meetings, reports of an agreement on a cease-fire were "not true."Mujahid also said in a statement that talks about "unresolved matters" will continue.Until the withdrawal of international troops was hammered out, "progress in other issues is impossible," he insisted.Another round of peace talks between the Taliban and the United States was tentatively set for February 25, the Reuters news agency quoted a Qatari Foreign Ministry official as saying on January 28.
| null |
https://www.sott.net/article/405963-More-on-the-US-Taliban-peace-agreement-framework
|
2019-01-28 18:42:33+00:00
| 1,548,718,953 | 1,567,550,615 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
707,957 |
theguardianuk--2019-08-19--Donald Trumps peace agreement is a betrayal of Afghanistan and its people Simon Tisdall
| 2019-08-19T00:00:00 |
theguardianuk
|
Donald Trump’s ‘peace agreement’ is a betrayal of Afghanistan and its people | Simon Tisdall
|
If Donald Trump has his way a [“peace agreement”](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/17/trump-hints-america- close-to-deal-with-taliban-others-question-peace) in Afghanistan will be finalised in the coming days. It’s a sure bet the US president will claim noisy, personal credit for ending one of America’s longest wars. Knowing him, he may even hail it as the “deal of the century” – despite having already accorded that boastful accolade to his failed [North Korea summitry](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/30/trump-north- korea-kim-jong-un). But the world, as always, should beware a Trump bearing gifts. What is in prospect, after months of US-Taliban talks, is more accurately termed a troop withdrawal than a peace deal. It will deliver what candidate Trump most wants – a path home for [14,000 American troops](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/05/taliban-talks-peace- afghanistan-190510062940394.html) before next year’s US election. It will not serve the interests of the Afghan people. More likely, this shoddy stitch-up will leave them trapped inside a pitiless conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of [civilian lives](https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/afghan) since 2001. Right now, it’s as bad as ever. July was the most lethal month for years, with about [1,500 people killed or wounded](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world- asia-49165676). And a chilling glimpse of worse to come emerged at the weekend when more than [60 wedding guests](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/17/dozens-feared-dead-or- wounded-after-afghan-wedding-hall-blast) were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul. A series of [attacks in Jalalabad](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/19/bombs-hit- restaurants-and-public-squares-in-eastern-afghanistan-jalalabad) followed on Monday. It’s well known that Trump never supported the US’s Afghan involvement, criticising its cost (financial, not human) and characterising it, unfairly, as another Obama bungle. For him, nation-building, like altruism in any form, is a foreign concept. Yet his reckless push to leave, without adequate security guarantees and a credible plan, is betrayal on many fronts. First and foremost it betrays the painful, patient efforts of ordinary Afghans to build a more inclusive, tolerant society after decades of civil war and external meddling. It betrays a fragile democratic process, whose next stage – presidential elections next month – is jeopardised by uncertainty over US intentions. And Trump’s unprincipled cut-and-run [betrays Afghan women](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/16/world/middleeast/afghanistan-peace- womens-rights-.html)’s groups and civil society activists whose precious gains, in terms of personal freedoms, education, healthcare and travel, may be trampled in the rush for the exit. If the Taliban regain the upper hand religious and ethnic minorities, such as the Shia Hazaras, will suffer badly. The abandoning of Afghanistan is a gross betrayal, too, of the sacrifices made by American and Nato military personnel, who were told that they were fighting the good fight. [More than 2,300](https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2018/Human%20Costs%2C%20Nov%208%202018%20CoW.pdf) US military personnel have died in Afghanistan. More than 20,000 have been wounded. And what of the terrible price paid by the UK’s troops? [At least 450 died](https://www.gov.uk/government/fields-of-operation/afghanistan) in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Many more were maimed for life. Yet this operation has neither endured nor secured freedom – and Helmand, scene of bitter fighting involving British forces, is back [in insurgent hands](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/30/it-feels-like-groundhog- day-us-marines-return-to-helmand-province-afghanistan). Gallingly, the Taliban now control, or contest, more territory than at any point since 2001 when George W Bush and Tony Blair went after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida following the 9/11 attacks. And yet here is Trump, the well-heeled [Vietnam draft- dodger](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/pete-buttigieg-trump- vietnam-war-disability-accusation), walking away on two good legs and looking to cash in electorally. Where is the anger, where is the fury, at this cruellest, most cynical of betrayals? The outlines of the deal being discussed in Qatar are fairly clear. In return for safe passage for departing forces and a Taliban pledge not to provide safe haven to jihadist groups such as Isis, [Trump will end the US’s campaign](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/world/asia/us-taliban-peace-deal- details.html) and bring its troops home. But crucial questions are up in the air. The Afghan government in Kabul, excluded from the Doha process, is expected, somehow, to reach a power-sharing arrangement with the Taliban. So far, neither side shows any sign it is able or willing to do so, not least because of intra-Afghan political splits and mutual, deeply ingrained enmity. For this reconciliation process even to begin, there must first be a nationwide ceasefire between the Afghan army and the insurgents. But the Taliban expressly reject any truce until all foreign forces have left – their fundamental demand. Meanwhile, al-Qaida and a strengthening Isis can be expected to [do their brutal best](https://www.apnews.com/add4a393afed4ca798401c5a0958f2c2) to disrupt any progress. The US military and intelligence agencies are by no means united in their view of Trump’s bid to portray retreat as victory, either. Experienced commanders such as the former US general David Petraeus doubt a divided Taliban leadership will keep its word. Hard-line elements may reject a [deal of any kind](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/13/afghanistan-no-deal- better-bad-deal/). So it makes sense that the US keep a residual force, primarily tasked with counter-terrorism but also with supporting the Afghan government and army. “A complete military exit would be even more ill-advised and risky than Obama’s disengagement from Iraq in 2011 [which opened the way for Isis],” [Petraeus warned](https://www.tolonews.com/afghanistan/petraeus- cautions-trump-over-troop-withdrawal-afghanistan) this month. A gradualist approach also reduces the risk that Iran, Russia, Pakistan and India – traditional players in the [“Great Game”](https://indianexpress.com/article/india/afghanistan-taliban-india- kashmir-us-zalmay-khalilzad-5895132/) – will exploit the vacuum caused by a precipitous US exit, thereby once more turning Afghanistan into a regional battleground and transforming a historic defeat for the west into an ongoing strategic disaster. Wars in Afghanistan do not end well. When a British army retreated from Kabul in 1842, during the [first Anglo-Afghan war](https://www.britannica.com/event/Anglo-Afghan-Wars), it was ruthlessly annihilated at Gandamak on the road to Jalalabad. No right thinking person would wish [Gen William Elphinstone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_George_Keith_Elphinstone)’s sorry fate on the departing Americans. But Trump must understand that if the US is to leave peacefully, it must do so responsibly and by stages, and in a way that ensures the hard-won political and social gains of recent years are not wantonly squandered. Afghanistan was broken. We in the west promised to fix it. Like it or not, that promise must be honoured. • Simon Tisdall is a foreign affairs commentator
|
Simon Tisdall
|
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/19/trump-peace-plan-betrayal-afghanistan
|
2019-08-19 17:33:00+00:00
| 1,566,250,380 | 1,567,534,035 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
1,029,795 |
thetorontostar--2019-10-31--India, Naga rebels hold peace talks, but no agreement signed
| 2019-10-31T00:00:00 |
thetorontostar
|
India, Naga rebels hold peace talks, but no agreement signed
|
NEW DELHI - India’s government and Naga rebel groups have held talks in New Delhi on ending 70 years of armed insurrection in the northeast, but did not sign a widely expected peace agreement. Nagaland state’s top elected official, Neiphiu Rio, said in a tweet that a breakthrough had been achieved in Thursday’s talks, but gave no details. A home ministry statement referred to anxiety among some groups about a possible agreement and said all stakeholders would be consulted and their concerns taken into consideration before any settlement is reached. It did not elaborate or say whether the government had accepted a contentious demand by one Naga faction for a separate flag and constitution. Separatist groups have been fighting the Indian government, accusing it of exploiting the region’s rich natural resources. Get more of the Star in your inbox Never miss the latest news from the Star. Sign up for our newsletters to get today's top stories, your favourite columnists and lots more in your inbox Sign Up Now
|
The Associated Press
|
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/asia/2019/10/31/india-naga-rebels-hold-peace-talks-but-no-agreement-signed.html
|
Thu, 31 Oct 2019 12:07:18 EDT
| 1,572,538,038 | 1,572,538,706 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
76,554 |
breitbart--2019-11-30--Colombia: Leftists Riot to Demand 'Peace Deal' with Marxist Terror Group
| 2019-11-30T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Colombia: Leftists Riot to Demand 'Peace Deal' with Marxist Terror Group
|
Leftist rioters in Colombia set out a range of demands in a letter to President Iván Duque on Thursday, including a renewed peace deal with the Marxist terror organization National Liberation Army (ELN). In the letter to Duque, elected last year on a platform of taking a harder stance against the Marxist terror organizations that have destabilized Colombia for decades, the “National Strike Committee” warned that his promise of a “grand national dialogue” was not sufficient to end the riots that have rocked the country over the past eight days. In the letter, also signed by 56 members of Congress and the pro-guerrilla Movement to Defend Peace, the signatories propose three demands to begin a dialogue with the government. One of these demands involves the demilitarization of Colombian cities following violent clashes between rioters and security forces. Another demand is to hold a “national table of dialogue that is both plural and diverse,” featuring representatives from various social sectors involved in the recent protests, including the National Committee of Unemployment, the Movement to Defend Peace, the Peace Bank, local assemblies and town councils, cultural expressions, and other sectors of the population. Once having initiated a dialogue, the committee is demanding that the government engage and make concessions on five different issues, which include: • Negotiations on the government’s social and economic policy, with specific regard to minority movements such as students, peasantry, and indigenous communities. • Full implementation of the Final Peace Agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) forced through by former President Juan Manuel Santos, with a view to re-opening talks with the People’s Liberation Army (ELN), who have carried out a number of deadly terrorist attacks across the country in recent years. • Discussions surrounding the government’s national security policy, human rights and military campaign against guerrilla forces. • Political and electoral reform, as well as a detailed plan of how they plan to fight corruption. • Measures to guarantee the rights of nature and the protection of the environment. It remains highly unlikely that the Duque administration would cede to such extensive demands, although the severity of the demonstrations has placed him under increased pressure to return stability to the South American country. The demands also make clear that the riots are being coordinated by groups with ties to Marxist terrorist organizations. The FARC, which the rioters seek to legitimize, declared war on the state this fall despite the Santos government issuing them multiple uncontested seats in the Colombian Congress. On Friday, it was reported that the government is seeking around $1 billion in dividends from state company Ecopetrol S.A. to help fund a public spending spree that would help reduce tensions, especially among Colombia’s most impoverished communities. Follow Ben Kew on Facebook, on Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at [email protected].
|
Ben Kew
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/ygP3vxvbSEM/
|
Sat, 30 Nov 2019 22:39:21 +0000
| 1,575,171,561 | 1,575,158,946 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
92,452 |
chicagosuntimes--2019-01-30--Peace with the Taliban Trump warned of Afghan pullout risks
| 2019-01-30T00:00:00 |
chicagosuntimes
|
Peace with the Taliban? Trump warned of Afghan pullout risks
|
WASHINGTON — Trump administration claims of progress in talks with the Taliban have sparked fears even among the president’s allies that his impatience with the war in Afghanistan will lead him to withdraw troops too soon, leaving the country at risk of returning to the same volatile condition that prompted the invasion in the first place. Discussions between a U.S. envoy and the Taliban are advancing weeks after the administration said it wanted to begin drawing down troops in Afghanistan. That has prompted some critics to note that President Donald Trump is telegraphing a withdrawal — the same thing he accused President Barack Obama of doing by saying he wanted to end the American combat mission in 2014. “It’s an effort to put lipstick on what will be a U.S. withdrawal,” said Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Kabul under Obama. A negotiated settlement to America’s longest war poses a dilemma for Trump. He has often declared he wants to end lengthy overseas military entanglements, something he made clear in December by declaring the Islamic State group defeated in Syria and announcing he was pulling 2,000 American troops from that country over the objections of his top foreign policy advisers. The stakes are higher in Afghanistan, a conflict that has cost 2,400 American lives and hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars. The U.S. invaded the country to oust the Taliban and al-Qaida in October 2001 in response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the CIA director warned as recently as Tuesday that Afghanistan could once again become a terrorist haven. But now even fellow Republicans worry that reports of progress will embolden Trump to withdraw troops from Afghanistan before the region is stable and will reintroduce the conditions that first ensnared America in the conflict. The Taliban now control nearly half the country and carry out near-daily attacks, and foreign-policy experts fear that any progress on protecting women and minorities in the country could be lost if the militant group is once again part of the government. The top Republican in Congress, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, cautioned the president against a hasty exit from the war. “While it is tempting to retreat to the comfort and security of our own shores, there is still a great deal of work to be done,” McConnell said Tuesday. “And we know that left untended, these conflicts will reverberate in our own cities.” James Dobbins, special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan during the Obama administration, said Trump “seems to have abandoned” the conditions-based strategy he espoused in 2017. The future of troops in Afghanistan is anybody’s guess, he said. “I don’t think anybody, including probably him, can predict his behavior,” Dobbins said. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Tuesday that the administration’s priority is to “end the war in Afghanistan, and to ensure that there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again.” Afghan officials hope Trump will explain his intentions in further detail during his State of the Union address next week. Taliban officials, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said that the two sides had reached an understanding about the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO troops and that the militant group had made assurances that Afghan soil would not be used again for attacks against the United States or others. On the U.S. side, Trump’s Afghanistan envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, said, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and ‘everything’ must include an intra-Afghan dialogue and comprehensive cease-fire.” That’s something the Taliban have refused to do, though they said Wednesday that they aren’t seeking a monopoly on power in a future Afghan administration but are instead looking for ways to co-exist with Afghan institutions —”tolerate one another and start life like brothers.” If the Taliban agree to talk to the Afghan government and stop fighting while they do so, the negotiations could be a “significant step,” Dobbins said. If they don’t agree, “then the whole thing is null and void.” Moreover, he said, the U.S. should stay until a peace deal between the Taliban and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s government is implemented. “If the U.S. leaves once the Afghans begin talking to each other, those talks will end and the war will resume,” Dobbins said. “If the U.S. leaves after they’ve come to an agreement but before it’s implemented, that agreement will never be implemented and the war will resume.” Nicholas Burns, a career foreign service officer and former undersecretary of state during George W. Bush’s administration, said he thinks Trump is right to find a way to bring U.S. troops home from Afghanistan. But he, too, thinks that the president’s impatience is the driving force behind current talks with the Taliban. “I think there’s an advantage to going slowly here,” said Burns, who is now at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. “Go quickly and we risk giving away too much to the Taliban.” The Pentagon has been developing plans to withdraw as many as half of the 14,000 U.S. troops still in Afghanistan. Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan told reporters Tuesday that there has been no change in the U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan, which is to force the Taliban to the peace table by realigning troops to train and advise Afghans and by getting greater support from the region. Talks led by Khalilzad must be given time to work, Shanahan said. Yet nobody knows how long Trump is willing to wait. In November, Khalilzad told Afghan journalists that he wanted to see concrete results by spring. Trump gave Khalilzad six months to show results, according to a former Afghan official, who is privy to details about the negotiations and spoke on condition of anonymity to protect his sources of information about the talks. The official said the militant group refuses to negotiate with the current Afghan government and insists on the creation of an interim government. Once that happens, the group wants to convene a grand national assembly to change the Afghan constitution to make it more to their liking, the former Afghan official said. The official said the Taliban don’t see that a U.S. pledge to withdrawal is contingent on a cease-fire and a requirement to negotiate with the Afghan government. Moreover, the official said, Ghani remains upset that the U.S. is talking to the Taliban without representatives from his government present. It also remains unclear how the U.S. could verify Taliban pledges that terrorist groups won’t use Afghanistan as a staging area for attacks. “If there were an eventual peace agreement,” CIA Director Gina Haspel told a Senate panel on Tuesday, “a very robust monitoring regime would be critical and we would still need to retain the capability to act in our national interest if we needed to.”
|
Associated Press
|
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/peace-with-the-taliban-trump-warned-of-afghan-pullout-risks/
|
2019-01-30 21:11:48+00:00
| 1,548,900,708 | 1,567,550,196 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
100,824 |
cnbc--2019-12-09--'It's now or never': Russia and Ukraine hold peace talks in Paris
| 2019-12-09T00:00:00 |
cnbc
|
'It's now or never': Russia and Ukraine hold peace talks in Paris
|
There is cautious optimism that talks between the leaders of Russia and Ukraine on Monday could end the stalemate over a long-running conflict in the Donbass region. Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky will be joined at the talks in Paris by France's President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel; the group is known as the "Normandy Four." Macron and Merkel have previously tried to broker several peace agreements, known as the "Minsk agreements," but these have yet to be fully implemented. It will be the first time that Putin and Zelensky have met face to face and the first time that the Normandy Four group has met since October 2016. Relations between Russia and Ukraine nose-dived after Moscow annexed Crimea from Ukraine in early 2014 and then supported a pro-Russian uprising in the Donbass region in the east of the country where two republics (of Donetsk and Luhansk) were declared by pro-Russian separatists. The conflict is now in its fifth year and has been largely characterized by clashes and skirmishes between separatists and the Ukrainian army. Nevertheless, 13,000 people (including civilians and combatants from both sides) have died in the conflict since 2014, according to the United Nations, and hostilities have affected 3.9 million civilians living in the region. The summit comes amid a tentative rapprochement between Russia and Ukraine that has taken place since Zelenksy came to power in May. He had made achieving a peace deal with Russia, and ending what he's called "this horrible war," a key part of his election manifesto. The 41-year-old president is inexperienced, however, having a background in comedy and TV production rather than politics, leading some experts to worry he could be outmaneuvered by a veteran Russian president. For Russia too, though, the stakes are high, with the country still subject to international sanctions for its interventions in Ukraine. The lifting of EU sanctions has been tied to the successful implementation of a peace agreement with Ukraine. There is a fragile cease-fire in the Donbass region right now but the Minsk agreements are widely seen to have failed because both sides accused the other of not abiding with the deal, and of misinterpretation of the conditions of the deal. In 2016, Germany's then-Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier came up with a plan (now known as the "Steinmeier formula") to solve the deadlock. The plan is like a road map to peace setting out a sequence of events that both sides need to enact — including the holding of free and fair elections in the Donbass region and for self-governing status to be granted if these are deemed to have taken place. This has proved a very hot potato for Zelensky who signed up to the formula in early October. He has been accused of capitulating to Russia and there were protests at the decision. Signing up to the Steinmeier formula has appeared to bear some fruit with Ukraine and pro-Russian separatists disengaging forces in three areas along the front line in recent weeks. For its part, Ukraine has said that no elections will take place in the region unless they are in accordance with Ukrainian law and until it regains control over its border with Russia in that area. Zelensky has said "there won't be any elections under the barrel of a gun," and that no elections would take place "if the troops are still there." Last week, an aide to the Ukrainian president said that Ukraine will attend the meeting in Paris with goodwill and hopes for a deal. But he added that it would not wait "years" for Russia to implement its part of the Minsk deal. Presidential aide Andriy Yermak also said that if peace talks with Russia fail, Ukraine will consider "building a wall" along its borders with Russia. Ahead of the summit, the Elysee Palace released a statement in November saying that it would "be held following major progress since the summer in negotiations for a settlement in the east Ukraine conflict, progress which in particular allowed the removal of troops from several areas on the frontline." There might be progress, but experts say the meeting might be a last opportunity for the countries to normalize relations. Christopher Granville, managing director of EMEA and Global Political Research at TS Lombard, told CNBC that the meeting was a "now or never" opportunity. "There seems a reasonable chance of some progress (at the meeting), but that's the boring answer, the more interesting answer is that I do think it's now or never. In politics there's always a window, there's a moment of political capital, a honeymoon when something can be done, and Zelenksy's honeymoon is probably past its zenith, so either something is done now or the window will close, so that's what makes it particularly interesting." Daragh McDowell, head of Europe and principal Russia analyst at Verisk Maplecroft, told CNBC ahead of the summit that principles of territorial sovereignty and integrity were at stake, however. "France has made it clear that it wants to normalize relations with Russia somehow, but at the same time we're in a position where Russia has changed its borders through military force, invaded a European country — there are very important principles at stake here and you can't just draw a line under it and say, 'all is done, all is forgotten'," he said. Russia also has a commercial interest in improving relations with its neighbor, not least on the energy front as it looks to maintain its dominant position in terms of energy provision to Europe. Russia was the largest supplier of natural gas to the EU, both in 2018 and 2019, according to data from Eurostat, although it is facing a competitive threat from the U.S. on that front. France and Germany's leaders want to see relations normalized between Ukraine and Russia due to the heightened geopolitical threat posed by Moscow on its border, as well as realpolitik and the desire to keep Russia on side and engaged to a large extent. Although new gas pipelines are under construction to transport Russian gas to Europe via alternative routes (such as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline which will supply gas from Russia to Germany, and the TurkStream pipeline from Russia to Turkey) much of the EU's gas currently comes via Ukraine.
| null |
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/russia-and-ukraine-hold-talks-in-paris.html
|
Mon, 09 Dec 2019 17:12:32 GMT
| 1,575,929,552 | 1,575,936,619 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
105,117 |
cnn--2019-06-03--Washington Post Pompeo tries to manage expectations on Middle East peace plan
| 2019-06-03T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
Washington Post: Pompeo tries to manage expectations on Middle East peace plan
|
Washington (CNN) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently acknowledged widespread skepticism of the Trump administration's Middle East peace plan, but said he hoped people would give it a chance. Pompeo described the plan as "very detailed, one might argue unexecutable," and said it "may be rejected," according to an audio recording obtained by CNN of a private meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations on Tuesday. "It may be rejected," Pompeo said. "It could be in the end, folks will say, 'it's not particularly original, it doesn't particularly work for me, that is, it's got two good things and nine bad things, I'm out.'" Pompeo said the State Department has given "quite a bit of consideration" to what it would do if the plan "doesn't gain traction," and said there are "no guarantees that we're the ones that unlock it." "We hope that there's enough vision here, enough space, that lots of countries will see this as an opportunity to really engage in this process," Pompeo said. President Donald Trump, when asked Sunday about the Post's reporting on Pompeo's comments, said, "Well, let's see what happens." "We're doing our best to help the Middle East to get a peace plan, and (Pompeo) may be right, I think most people would say that. I think we have a good chance, but we'll see what happens." "Most people think it can't be done, I think it probably can," Trump said. "But as I say often, we'll see what happens." Trump administration officials have offered few details about the political portion of the long-awaited Israeli-Palestinian peace plan. The effort is being led by the President's son-in-law and White House senior adviser, Jared Kushner. The plan discusses four major components: infrastructure, industry, empowering and investing in people, and governance reforms to help make the area as appealing as possible to investors. Pompeo said, "I get why people think this is going to be a deal that only the Israelis could love. I understand the perception of that. I hope everyone will just give the space to listen and let it settle in a little bit." Pompeo noted the unveiling of the long-awaited plan has been delayed and said, "This has taken us longer to roll out our plan than I had originally thought it might -- to put it lightly." "Everyone will find something to hate about the proposal, everything will find something I think, including the Palestinians, will find something that they say that's something to build upon," Pompeo said. "Then the big question is can we get enough space that we can have a real conversation about how to build this out," Pompeo said. Malcolm Hoenlein, CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which hosted the event, told CNN he and other participants did not take Pompeo's remarks as critical of the prospects of the Trump administration's peace plan. "He was citing what people had raised," Hoenlein told CNN, and that people should give the proposal due consideration once it is unveiled. Hoenlein characterized Pompeo's message as: "People should cool it and give it a chance," and "don't fall" for arguments already being made. He praised the speech, given to 50 heads of various Jewish organizations encompassing various political viewpoints, as thoughtful. The State Department's special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Elan Carr, who also attended the meeting, said he thought Pompeo "provided a hopeful assessment over the prospect of a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians," according to the Post. "It was an excellent briefing that was very well received by the conference," he said in a statement from the State Department to the Post. The State Department had no immediate comment to CNN.
|
Kate Sullivan
|
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/j-eujReCq8c/index.html
|
2019-06-03 03:06:43+00:00
| 1,559,545,603 | 1,567,539,272 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
106,205 |
cnn--2019-08-02--US scaling back Afghanistan embassy at crucial moment in peace talks
| 2019-08-02T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
US scaling back Afghanistan embassy at crucial moment in peace talks
|
Washington (CNN) The Trump administration is in the midst of carrying out a dramatic scaling back of the US embassy in Afghanistan, with the goal of cutting half of the embassy's personnel by the end of September, according to five sources familiar with the matter. The diplomatic draw down comes as the US is hopeful that a peace deal will be reached with the Taliban that would pave the way to reduce the number of US troops in the country from approximately 14,000 to between 8,000 and 9,000 in the coming months, according to two sources familiar with the negotiations The goal of the troop reduction had been relayed to the Afghan government by Gen. Scott Miller, the head of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and US Special Eepresentative for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad. As part of the diplomatic scale back, the State Department is sending home diplomats from Kabul without replacements, cutting back on security personnel, closing some facilities and cancelling proposals to build additional structures like new apartments for embassy personnel. This is part of the Trump administration's push to "end the war in Afghanistan," a State Department spokesperson said. While the focus has been on reducing troops, the number of people supporting the US embassy in Kabul had dramatically grown in recent years so the administration saw an opportunity to cut numbers there as well, sources explained. "It is a place where Pompeo could get points with Trump, so he moved on the opportunity," said a former US State Department official. "He also got some buy in from the State Department to do it." The scaling back of the embassy comes at a sensitive moment. Khalilzad, the main US negotiator, has been meeting with Taliban leaders in Doha for months to seek commitments towards peace in Afghanistan. He has come under fire for keeping the Afghan government in the dark, but this week as he headed to Doha for further talks, he predicted success. "In Doha, if the Taliban do their part, we will do ours, and conclude the agreement we have been working on," Khalilizad wrote in a tweet on Wednesday. However, on a trip to Afghanistan last month, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford stuck to the notion any drawdown of troops will continue to be conditions based on the ground and not related to or dependent on political events, according to sources familiar with the visit. But there remains an awareness that Khalilizad is discussing the possible troop draw down with the Taliban, which could trigger quick changes. Trump has repeatedly voiced his desire to bring an end to the US presence in the 18-year conflict. This week Pompeo gave a glimpse of the pressure he is under when it comes to accomplishing that goal when he said a reduction of forces is "would be job-enhancing." Trump also recently stirred outrage by suggesting that he could bring a swift end to the war by obliterating the nation. "I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the earth, it would be over in literally in 10 days and I don't want to do that -- I don't want to go that route," the President said last week. "We're like policemen. We're not fighting a war. If we wanted to fight a war in Afghanistan and win it, I could win it in a week. I just don't want to kill 10 million people." The State Department has been conducting an internal review of their diplomatic footprint in Afghanistan, but it is now focusing on implementing the draw down. They did not provide exact figures on the drawdown but acknowledged that it is happening. "Mission Kabul has long been our largest mission in the world, more than double the size of any other U.S. diplomatic mission. Even under the plan based on this review, Embassy Kabul would remain one of our largest diplomatic missions in the world, with a presence calibrated to achieve our goals," said a State Department spokesperson. They added that goal of the posture review has the goal is set on making the US "diplomatic presence and assistance levels more sustainable for the long term." This process to drive down the numbers at the embassy -- which include security and diplomatic personnel -- is ongoing and has been stretched out over a number of months. Congress has been briefed on the plans to scale back the embassy, congressional aides say. But there are still major changes that are waiting to be officially cleared by Congress through congressional notification. The cuts have been fueled by not backfilling jobs when people leave the embassy to rotate to new assignments. Most of these happen in the summer. Given that the process can happen somewhat organically by simply not sending in new personnel, diplomatic security at the State Department has not received executive orders to draw down in large numbers, according to a source familiar with the execute orders. The State Department also pointed out that the majority of staff reductions are to contractor positions as they look to consolidate. While some experts and former State Department officials who served at the embassy warn there are risks associated with a scaling back, they don't all completely oppose the drawdown. "The Embassy in Kabul had grown fairly large over the past decade, particularly as the number of violent incidents spiked in Kabul and it became necessary to increase security to ensure that diplomats could conduct routine business," says Annie Pforzheimer, a former deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Kabul last year and now a senior non-resident associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "I can understand some kind of reduction, but I would be concerned if a drawdown impeded our diplomats' ability to observe local events and interact with Afghans. We should not cut costs if it means we lose these vital connections." Ambassador John Bass, who has been at the embassy for almost two years, is helping with the effort to scale back, sources say. The State Department says the cuts are not part of a slash and burn strategy. "The plan is not a 'haircut' and the reductions are not applied evenly across sections. Rather, the changes we are enacting take into account the importance of preserving capabilities to achieve our top goals -- peace and reconciliation, state stability, and moving the Afghans toward greater self-reliance," said a State Department spokesperson. Some argue that cutting the size of the embassy could in fact increase its effectiveness. "If you have cut aid programs and also have almost no field access without military protection, there is no reason to keep people some sort of strange political symbol. If you don't tie the personnel to function you lose focus on the real mission," explains Anthony Cordesman who was once a director of intelligence assessment at the Defense Department and is now at CSIS. "Very often in the past, the personnel numbers did not get readjusted as a program amended or was cut."
|
Kylie Atwood
|
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/wJTWJD8yQF4/index.html
|
2019-08-02 00:50:40+00:00
| 1,564,721,440 | 1,567,535,041 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
106,575 |
cnn--2019-09-09--Republican reps cite 911 anniversary in criticizing Trump decision to invite Taliban to US for peac
| 2019-09-09T00:00:00 |
cnn
|
Republican reps cite 9/11 anniversary in criticizing Trump decision to invite Taliban to US for peace talks
|
The comments from Reps. Michael Waltz of Florida and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois come one day after Trump tweeted that he invited Taliban leaders to Camp David for secret peace talks this weekend but canceled the meeting after the Taliban took credit for an attack in Kabul that killed a dozen people, including an American soldier. Trump has long sought to withdraw the US from its longest war, but his revelation on Saturday night that he was considering holding talks with the Taliban at Camp David -- a storied retreat where presidents have famously secured peace accords -- was striking, especially coming so close to the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. "As we head into the anniversary of 9/11, I do not ever want to see these terrorists step foot on United States soil. Period," Waltz, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told CNN's Fredricka Whitfield on "Newsroom" Sunday afternoon. Waltz said Sunday that among his top concerns over Trump's invitation was the Taliban "declaring this a victory." "The Taliban have shown zero desire for peace. There's no ceasefire that they've agreed to. In fact, they've ramped up their attacks. We talked about the American soldier that just came home this morning in a coffin," he said. "So I just have a lot of concerns. I'm urging the President to walk away from this deal as it stands," he added. Kinzinger, an Air Force veteran who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, told CNN's Ana Cabrera later Sunday that he was in "disbelief" that "Taliban leaders, in the week of 9/11 ... were going to come to really the area in the United States, not too far from New York, Camp David, that has been a place of such wonderful things that have happened in the past." He added that "negotiations between nation states can happen there, but a terrorist organization that doesn't recognize nation states, that kills innocent women and children, that denies women the right to really even be in the same room as their husbands ... to have them at Camp David is totally unacceptable." Kinzinger said Trump was correct to walk away from the talks. When pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper earlier Sunday over criticism of the invitation to host Taliban leaders just days from the 9/11 anniversary, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo only offered that the US has "made real progress" toward peace talks. "It's not just about commitments. We have to see them be able to deliver it. We have to have proof that it's delivered. When we get to that point, when American national security interests can be protected I am confident President Trump will continue the process of trying to get what he has talked about since his campaign -- a reduction of our risk level and the cost to the American people both in terms of life and treasure there in Afghanistan." Pompeo added that the US is still interested in striking a peace deal with the Taliban but won't move forward until there is proof that the Taliban can deliver on its commitments under a potential agreement. This story has been updated.
|
Paul LeBlanc
|
http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/zYaVw8sOORY/index.html
|
2019-09-09 08:41:47+00:00
| 1,568,032,907 | 1,569,330,703 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
184,132 |
eveningstandard--2019-09-08--Donald Trump scraps peace deal with Taliban over Kabul bombing
| 2019-09-08T00:00:00 |
eveningstandard
|
Donald Trump scraps peace deal with Taliban over Kabul bombing
|
US President Donald Trump has said he cancelled a peace deal with the Taliban after a bombing in the past week in Kabul that killed 12 people, including an American soldier. The president said in a tweet on Saturday evening that he had scrapped a secret weekend meeting at Camp David with Taliban and Afghanistan leaders after the bombing. Mr Trump’s tweet was surprising as it would have meant he was ready to host members of the Taliban at the presidential retreat just days before the anniversary of the September 11 2001 attacks. More than 2,400 American troops have been killed since the US invaded Afghanistan to go after the Taliban, who were harbouring al Qaida leaders responsible for 9/11. Cancelling the talks also goes against Mr Trump's pledge to withdraw the remaining 13,000 to 14,000 US troops from Afghanistan and end US involvement in an almost 18-year conflict. Zalmay Khalilzad, the Trump administration's diplomat who has talking to Taliban leaders for months, said recently that he was on the "threshold" of an agreement with the Taliban aimed at ending America's longest war. The president, however, has been under pressure from the Afghan government and some US politicians, including Trump supporter Senator Lindsey Graham, who mistrust the Taliban and think it is too early to withdraw American forces. "Unbeknownst to almost everyone, the major Taliban leaders and, separately, the President of Afghanistan, were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Sunday," Mr Trump tweeted. "They were coming to the United States tonight. Unfortunately, in order to build false leverage, they admitted to an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great great soldiers, and 11 other people. I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations," he wrote. On Thursday, a Taliban car bomb exploded and killed an American soldier, a Romanian service member and 10 civilians in a busy diplomatic area near the US Embassy in Kabul. The bombing was one of many attacks by the Taliban in recent days during US-Taliban talks. The Defence Department said Sergeant 1st Class Elis A Barreto Ortiz, 34, from Morovis, Puerto Rico, was killed in action when the explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was the fourth US service member killed in the past two weeks in Afghanistan. "What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position? They didn't, they only made it worse!" Mr Trump tweeted. "If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don't have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway. How many more decades are they willing to fight?" It remains unclear if the US-Taliban talks are over or only paused. Mr Trump said he called off the peace negotiations after the bombing, but envoy Mr Khalilzad was meeting leaders of the insurgent group in Doha, Qatar, on both Thursday and Friday. The State Department and the White House declined to respond to requests for clarification. There was no immediate response from the Afghan government. A Taliban spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, told the Associated Press that he could not immediately confirm Mr Trump's account of a Camp David meeting. "It is a political issue," he said. "We are waiting for our leaders and will update you. Many in the Afghan government, which has been sidelined from the US-Taliban talks, and among the Afghan people have been sceptical of the negotiations, fearing there was little if nothing in the deal to stop the Taliban from continuing its attacks against civilians. The two shattering Taliban car bombings in Kabul in the past week, which the insurgent group said targeted foreigners but killed far more civilians, renewed those fears. Longtime Afghanistan watchers, including former US officials, apparently did not see this twist coming. After word emerged that a Washington visit by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had been postponed, some assumed Mr Ghani had been trying to make a last-minute effort to meet Mr Trump to express concerns about the approaching deal. "Whatever was the reason for inviting Taliban leaders to Camp David and whatever the real reason for pulling the plug, the peace process has been disrupted at least for the moment," said Laurel Miller, Asia director for International Crisis Group. "After all the violence during many months of negotiations, it's difficult to see why last Thursday's attack would be the sole reason for changing course," she said. "This could be a blow to the credibility of the US commitment to the peace process. Hopefully it can be brought back on track because there's no better alternative." Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia programme at the Wilson Centre, tweeted: "It would've been a Trumpian move to the core: It would have legitimized bad guys, offered photo ops galore & generated tons of press attention. And very tacky. And ... little would've come of it."
|
Katy Clifton
|
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/donald-trump-scraps-peace-deal-with-taliban-over-kabul-bombing-a4231441.html
|
2019-09-08 05:55:52+00:00
| 1,567,936,552 | 1,569,330,772 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
195,889 |
foreignpolicy--2019-02-26--The US Can Afford a Peace Deal in Korea
| 2019-02-26T00:00:00 |
foreignpolicy
|
The U.S. Can Afford a Peace Deal in Korea
|
The U.S. Can Afford a Peace Deal in Korea As U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un arrive in Hanoi this week for their second summit, the possibility of an end-of-war declaration of the Korean War is once more on the horizon, replacing the 1953 Armistice Agreement that formalized a cease-fire and left the war technically ongoing to this day. The declaration won’t practically change the status quo, as active hostilities between the two Koreas have been mostly over since 1953. It would be only right for the United States to put a formal end to its longest war. Further, it can be a low-cost way of testing the hypothesis that Kim will begin taking steps for denuclearization if he can be assured of a better relationship with the United States. A chorus of foreign-policy voices in Washington, however, insists that the Korean War must continue into its 70th year. Their chief argument is that the end-of-war declaration may supply rhetorical backing for the withdrawal of the 28,500 U.S. troops in South Korea. One typical example of this argument is the recent article by the Heritage Foundation’s Peter Brookes, who writes: “Once peace has supposedly been declared between Washington and Pyongyang, what stops North Korea from pushing for an additional reduction in U.S.-South Korea [military] exercises?” Similarly, in an op-ed for the New York Times, Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute called the peace declaration “illusory,” because “[w]ith a signed declaration in hand, the Kim government would demand, naturally, the departure of American forces from the Korean Peninsula.” This argument rests on several dubious premises. To begin with, it misunderstands the point of the U.S. forces in South Korea. United States Forces Korea exists not only for the sake of opposing North Korea, but also as a key piece in the U.S. positioning in East Asia, particularly given the rise of China. Declaring peace with North Korea does little to change the U.S. strategic posture in this regard. World War II has been over for more than 70 years, but the United States still has tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in the former Axis, namely Germany, Italy, and Japan. No formal, ongoing war is necessary to justify the presence of those troops. The same is true for those in South Korea. And if North Korea makes a demand, who cares? Washington and Seoul are under no obligation to act just because Pyongyang pushes. The continued U.S. military presence is entirely up to the United States and South Korea. But for what it’s worth, Pyongyang has been consistent in not making an issue out of their presence throughout the recent round of talks. In the first inter-Korean summit between Kim and South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in, held in April 2018, Pyongyang conveyed to Seoul that it did not intend to demand U.S. forces’ withdrawal. North Korea recently reiterated this point directly to Trump. When North Korea’s former spy chief Kim Yong Chol visited the White House last month to deliver a letter from Kim Jong Un’s, the envoy reportedly pledged that Pyongyang would not raise the U.S. forces issue even after the Korean Peninsula enters a peace regime. Of course, North Korea may be lying, as it often does. But it’s silly to point to a demand that hasn’t been made and that wouldn’t need to be followed even if it were. Further, there is no indication that either South Korea or the United States wants U.S. forces to leave South Korea. In D.C. foreign-policy circles, the idea that the South Korean public, especially those who are politically left of center, wants the U.S. military to leave is fashionable. That’s simply untrue, as South Korea’s public support for the U.S. military presence continues to be overwhelming. In a survey conducted shortly before the first inter-Korean summit in April 2018, 73.4 percent of South Koreans said that the U.S. forces ought to stay even if a peace treaty formally ends the Korean War. Moon, the left-of-center South Korean president, also gave a clear statement of the same. In his September 2018 interview with Fox News, Moon said: “Even after the peace treaty is signed and even after the unification is achieved, I can see U.S. forces in Korea remaining in place for the peace and stability of the Northeast Asian region.” The U.S. public is also steadfast in its support for defending South Korea, a key ally in East Asia. Despite the common claim that Americans are tired of foreign engagements, the U.S. public—conservatives and liberals alike—is in favor of using U.S. troops to defend South Korea in case of a North Korean attack, according to a poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in July 2018. To be sure, there is one notable American who has a dim view of U.S. Forces Korea: President Donald Trump. In Trump’s vulgar worldview, allies are free-riding on the security arrangements provided by the United States, and South Korea is no exception. The recently concluded negotiations for the Special Measures Agreement, which sets forth the cost-sharing structure for U.S. Forces Korea between Washington and Seoul, were a sign of the contempt that Trump holds for the U.S.-South Korean alliance. The negotiations, which are usually a routine exercise occurring every five years, stalled after the United States made an outrageous demand that would have nearly doubled South Korea’s contribution from about $864 million a year to $1.6 billion. That was made all the worse because it came shortly after South Korea took on most of the $13 billion in costs required to renovate Camp Humphreys, a U.S. base south of Seoul. Reportedly, the two countries agreed to a deal in which South Korea would contribute around $1 billion, but they will review the deal again in just a year. This caused some analysts to claim that an end-of-war declaration might give Trump an excuse to withdraw the U.S. forces from South Korea. For example, Sue Mi Terry at the Center for Strategic and International Studies recently wrote: “if the Korean War is formally over, and South and North Korea are in a state of peace, what is the rationale for keeping 28,000 U.S. troops in South Korea? … The danger of an [sic] U.S. withdrawal is all the greater because Donald Trump is president … It would not take much to lead Trump to withdraw U.S. forces—and a peace declaration could very well provide the excuse he is looking for.” But there’s good reason to be skeptical about Trump’s ability to withdraw the whole of U.S. Forces Korea by presidential fiat. Trump made headlines in December 2018 by declaring U.S. withdrawal from the Syrian civil war, which caused then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis to resign in protest and the Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell to issue a rare rebuke against Trump. But nearly two months later, the Pentagon does not even have a timeline for the withdrawal, as the countries involved are unable to craft an arrangement after the United States leaves. All this is over disengaging from less than four years of participating in an unpopular war with a little more than 4,000 troops. The backlash against a U.S. Forces Korea withdrawal from the South Korean government and the U.S. government (including Trump’s own cabinet) would be incomparably greater, before even considering the logistical challenge of removing the 28,500 U.S. troops who have been seamlessly integrated with the South Korean military for over 60 years. Even in the unlikely case that Trump declares the full withdrawal of U.S. forces shortly after his second summit with Kim, it is more likely that Trump will no longer be the president before the U.S. troops actually leave the country. But more notable in this argument is the perverse logic that the United States must not end the Korean War because it may cause the president of the United States to withdraw the U.S. military from South Korea. As discussed earlier, nothing stops the United States from formally ending the Korean War and maintaining forces there, as long as South Korea is willing to host the U.S. troops—and it is. But this twisted logic in fact points to the more fundamental issue. It is not the end-of-war declaration that undermines the U.S.-South Korea alliance; the damage is coming from the United States and its leader. Instead of demanding the two Koreas continue to be locked in a forever war, perhaps American foreign-policy analysts should spend more energy thinking about how to direct their own government toward achieving peace in the Korean Peninsula while remaining faithful to its ally.
|
S. Nathan Park
|
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/26/the-u-s-can-afford-a-peace-deal-in-korea-south-korea-north-korea-hanoi-summit-trump/
|
2019-02-26 22:16:19+00:00
| 1,551,237,379 | 1,567,547,315 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
196,635 |
foreignpolicy--2019-07-04--There Will Be No Peace for Afghanistan
| 2019-07-04T00:00:00 |
foreignpolicy
|
There Will Be No Peace for Afghanistan
|
There Will Be No Peace for Afghanistan As talks to end the war in Afghanistan continue in Qatar this week, and amid continued political disarray in Kabul, there seems to be one clear trend on the ground: The Taliban are consolidating control. The longer the war drags on—now in its 18th year—the more the balance of the conflict tips in the insurgent group’s favor. While there has been fierce debate in the West and in government-controlled areas of Afghanistan about what peace talks with the Taliban mean for women’s rights and the future of Afghan democracy, the view from Taliban-controlled areas suggests a harsh reality that few in the international community seem prepared for: If peace talks succeed, the Taliban will effectively formalize, and likely expand, their control over vast swaths of the country. If peace talks fail, however, the outcome will likely be far worse, with renewed fighting and a precarious government in Kabul. The Taliban have spent years preparing for a return to power. In areas currently under their control, the insurgency has replaced the Afghan government with their own administration, including sharia courts and a force of shadow civil servants responsible for an array of tasks from monitoring teacher attendance to collecting taxes. Most Afghans in these areas, which have borne the brunt of the conflict, simply want the fighting to end. They assume that under any U.S.-brokered deal, Taliban control will simply become permanent. And they have strikingly modest hopes for peace: “Once they don’t have to fight anymore, maybe the Taliban will be less strict,” one woman in the eastern province of Logar said. “Maybe they will let girls go back to school.” If hope is in short supply, it is in part because hopes have been dashed too many times. In June 2018, a three-day cease-fire declared by the Taliban, the Afghan government, and international forces was the first official pause in the 18-year war. It was a remarkable turn of events that few could have predicted. Pictures of Taliban, government forces, and civilians celebrating the Eid holiday together flooded social media. There was little violence and no civilian casualties. Afghans gained a glimpse of what peace might look like and a sense that an end to the war might finally be in sight. It wasn’t to be. Fighting resumed almost immediately after the cease-fire and has not let up since. The wife of a Taliban fighter described the cease-fire as a cruel trick that created hope only to snatch it away. When I asked about the prospect of peace talks, she waved her hand dismissively. Like many others, she believed that the war would only end if U.S. forces withdrew. Nonetheless, recent progress made in political talks would have seemed unthinkably optimistic even a year ago. The United States reversed its refusal to talk directly to the Taliban and appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation in September 2018. Khalilzad and Taliban representatives have since engaged in several rounds of negotiations. In January, Khalilzad announced that the United States and the Taliban had broadly agreed on a draft document outlining a withdrawal of U.S. troops and guarantees from the Taliban that they will not harbor or support foreign terrorist organizations. Before it can be finalized, however, the United States has insisted that the Taliban agree to talk directly to the Afghan government and declare another cease-fire. The Taliban have steadfastly refused—they don’t even recognize the government in Kabul. As talks continued, Washington ramped up airstrikes as well as searches and raids targeting the Taliban. These operations are no longer geared toward reasserting Afghan government control or preventing the Taliban from gaining further ground. The objective is instead to pressure the Taliban into making concessions, such as talking directly to the Afghan government. No one knows any longer how much territory might be under Taliban influence or control. Operation Resolute Support, the NATO mission to advise, train, and support Afghan forces, stopped measuring this in October 2018. Instead, the military focus seems to be on increasing on Taliban body counts. The consequences for civilians have been disastrous. Civilian casualties from airstrikes reached record highs in 2018. In May, the United Nations announced that, for the first time since it started systematically monitoring civilian casualties, international and Afghan government forces are responsible for more civilian deaths than the insurgents. While this increased military pressure might keep the Taliban at bay, there’s little indication it has dented their resolve. Instead, they present the cease-fire and talks with the United States as a sign of their political and military strength. “Americans said this group is not united, it is fragmented,” a senior member of the Taliban leadership told me in Dubai last January. “The bottom line is that we did this to prove to the world we are under one command, and everyone should respect this command.” To fighters on the ground, peace talks are an acknowledgment of the Taliban’s growing power. The fighters I interviewed were resolute: They would not lay down arms until the United States withdrew and what they considered to be a true Islamic government could be established. They uniformly insisted that of course they wanted peace—but on their terms. The Taliban focus is now on waiting out U.S. resolve. Taliban foot soldiers see no point in talks with the Afghan government. “If the United States stops their support to the government for even a month, we would be able to take all of Afghanistan,” a Taliban commander in Helmand said. “That’s why we have to reach an agreement with Washington.” Despite refusing to formally engage with the Afghan government, Taliban leaders have indicated that they are open to sharing power with other factions. They have also said that they want an inclusive postwar government. At a conference held in Moscow in February with former President Hamid Karzai and other Afghan power brokers in attendance, the Taliban leadership called for “the establishment of an inclusive independent Islamic System that is acceptable to Afghans and reflects Islamic and Afghan values.” The degree to which the Taliban’s overtures are genuine is unclear. Fighters on the ground generally assume that they will retain control of their areas—and assert full control in currently contested areas—under any peace deal. The fate of major cities and regions that have resisted Taliban influence was left undefined. What power-sharing seems to mean to these fighters is that the Taliban are willing to allow others to participate in their future government. Fighters hoped that this government would enforce the Taliban’s brand of sharia and conservative social practices that deeply constrain women’s rights and freedoms. If the Taliban were to take power in this way, the best outcome that can be reasonably hoped for is that they will form a less incompetent and more lenient government than they did in the 1990s. Talks with the Afghan government seem a long way off, however, and for reasons that have nothing to do with the Taliban’s intransigence. The National Unity Government is increasingly divided, with Afghan political factions gearing up for presidential elections scheduled for Sept. 28. A peace jirga, or political gathering, convened by the government last month yielded little consensus and seemed to be more about electoral politics than ending the war. Several major political factions boycotted the jirga, claiming it was a political trick designed to bolster President Ashraf Ghani’s reelection prospects. The possibility of credible elections is remote. Presidential elections, originally set for April 20, have been twice delayed. Provincial and district council elections, also initially scheduled for September, have been indefinitely postponed. In parliamentary elections held last October, at least one-third of polling stations could not open due to insecurity, and the results were so contested that they took six months to announce. Afghanistan’s last two presidential elections, in 2009 and 2014, were widely fraudulent, and the results were disputed. In the 2014 elections, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry intervened to broker a power-sharing agreement that would prevent the government from unraveling. To expect a conclusive result in the next round of voting would be deeply unrealistic. Even the best potential outcome is likely to be a deeply unpalatable one. If peace talks actually succeed, the Taliban will exert considerable power, if not outright control, in any future government. The consequences for Afghans, particularly women, in areas currently held by the government are likely to be severe. Donors in Kabul have consistently articulated support for peace efforts. Whether they would continue to support such a government is another question altogether. The alternatives, however, may be even worse: a continued escalation in violence or all-out civil war. “The fighters on the front line on both sides can make peace easily,” a fighter in Helmand argued. “If we left it up to them the war would be settled, but, like every war, it is not the fighters who decide.” For better or worse, the fate of Afghanistan is up to political leaders in Washington, Kabul, and Doha to decide. As the current round of talks—the seventh such attempt—continues in Qatar, the United States is eager to finalize a deal to end its involvement in the war. U.S. military and State department officials said privately that they were working with a “tweet of Damocles” hanging over their heads, fearing that U.S. President Donald Trump will spontaneously issue a tweet withdrawing troops from Afghanistan as he did with Syria in December 2018. The Afghan government is increasingly consumed by infighting and electoral politics. And the Taliban are running out the clock, betting that their refusal to talk to the Afghan government will allow them to strengthen their negotiating hand and their territorial control. At present, none of these actors appear ready, or able, to make the sacrifices required to end the war.
|
Ashley Jackson
|
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/04/afghanistan-taliban-peace-talks-2/
|
2019-07-04 21:56:13+00:00
| 1,562,291,773 | 1,567,536,957 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
196,977 |
foreignpolicy--2019-08-30--Call to Rearm Threatens Colombias Peace Process
| 2019-08-30T00:00:00 |
foreignpolicy
|
Call to Rearm Threatens Colombia’s Peace Process
|
Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: A former FARC commander in Colombia returns to the fight, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson deals with the backlash to his move to suspend Parliament, and an Iranian launch vehicle explodes before takeoff. We’re taking a break Monday for Labor Day. Audrey Wilson, Foreign Policy’s newsletter editor, will be back in the saddle Tuesday. We welcome your feedback at [email protected]. Three years after it first went into force, the already tenuous peace deal between Bogotá and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is facing its greatest threat yet. On Thursday, a top former guerrilla leader—Luciano Marín, who goes by Iván Márquez—appeared in a video, flanked by other influential former rebel figures, accusing the government of betraying the peace accord and calling for a return to war. It is not yet clear how many of the 7,000 or so demobilized fighters are likely to heed his call, or how many already active dissidents he will be able to recruit and unify. The peace agreement was meant to bring an end to a half-century of armed conflict that left more than 200,000 people dead. Smaller guerrilla groups, most notably the National Liberation Army (ELN), still remain active, and the FARC’s demobilization sparked a spike in violence as some fought to take control of formerly FARC-held territory. What does this mean for the peace agreement? In the years since the peace accord took effect, both sides have struggled to uphold their ends of the bargain. The government committed to keeping former fighters safe, but more than a hundred have been killed since the deal was signed, along with hundreds of local activists, while planned development projects in rural areas have stalled. Meanwhile, thousands of FARC fighters have returned to the jungle and the drug trade that has long sustained their movement. “Support for Colombia’s peace deal seems to be eroding on all sides,” Francisco Serrano wrote in Foreign Policy last month. “Renewed violence, a charged political environment, and the inherent difficulties of implementing parts of the plan have taken a toll.” What will Duque do? Political change in Colombia has also played a role: Colombian President Iván Duque Márquez is far more skeptical of the deal than was former President Juan Manuel Santos, who signed it and went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Duque has vowed to hunt down the fighters in the video. Rodrigo Londoño, the former head of FARC and an architect of the peace deal, said most former guerrillas remained committed to peace. “Even if the government does not fully agree with the current peace deal, it should take steps to ensure its implementation,” Serrano wrote in FP. “If it fails to do so, Colombia risks being dragged back into the past instead of moving toward the future.” Boris Johnson is pushing for an eleventh-hour Brexit deal. Britain is still reeling in the wake of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s move to suspend Parliament in an apparent effort to limit legislators’ room to maneuver in the run-up to the Oct. 31 deadline for Britain’s exit from the European Union. On Friday morning, John Major, the former Conservative prime minister, sought to join a legal challenge brought by the anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller at the High Court in London. Two other court hearings challenging the prime minister’s move are taking place in Edinburgh and Belfast. In response to the backlash, Johnson has promised to redouble efforts to seek a last-minute deal with Brussels. But the EU does not necessarily intend to budge. “No-deal is not in its economic or political interest, but it is preferable to abandoning its key principles,” Helene von Bismarck argues in FP. “The reason why the rest of the EU has held firm on the main point of contention, the Irish border, is not that it is comfortable that a no-deal Brexit could never happen,” she adds. “It is their resolve that the integrity of the single market and solidarity with Ireland must be paramount.” Netanyahu’s electoral calculus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered the leader of the small Zehut Party, Moshe Feiglin, a cabinet post in exchange for dropping out of the race. Zehut, which ran primarily on the issue of medical marijuana legalization, was polling below the electoral threshold and risked being shut out of the Knesset. If the party’s voters now cast their ballots for Netanyahu’s Likud Party, it could help Likud gain an extra seat. Netanyahu, who has been lagging in polls for the Sept. 17 election, might make a similar offer to the far-right Otzma Yehudit party, which includes followers of the late extremist rabbi Meir Kahane and the Kahanist group Kach, which was declared a terrorist organization by the Israeli and U.S. governments during the 1990s. Iran’s failure to launch. Tehran has devoted considerable efforts this year to botched attempts to reach outer space. Rockets sent up in January and February did not make it into orbit, and a launch vehicle slated for a new attempt “blew up on the launch pad” on Thursday, Dave Schmerler, a senior research associate at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies who reviewed satellite images of the site, told NPR. South Korea’s Park faces retrial. South Korea’s highest court ordered a new trial for former President Park Geun-hye, who is serving a 25-year prison sentence after her conviction last year on bribery and abuse of power charges. The court ruled that each bribery count should have resulted in a separate verdict rather than being wrapped into a single one. Park’s 10-month trial shone a light on shady dealings at the highest levels of South Korean business and politics. For news and analysis on the world’s most populous and fastest-growing regions, sign up for FP’s new weekly newsletters: South Asia Brief, delivered on Tuesdays, and China Brief, delivered on Wednesdays. Hong Kong activists arrested. In Hong Kong, authorities detained three leading protest movement figures: Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow, leaders of the 2014 Umbrella Movement protests that laid the groundwork for today’s pro-democracy unrest, and Andy Chan, who was the leader of the pro-independence Hong Kong National Party, which is currently banned. The move was likely related to plans to protest the five-year anniversary of China’s decision to increase its involvement in Hong Kong’s elections, the New York Times reports. Migrants face mumps. Some 900 immigrants held in U.S. detention facilities have contracted mumps, a contagious viral disease, over the past year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the United States, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees are 4,000 times more likely to get mumps than someone not in detention, Marc Stern, an affiliate assistant professor in public health at the University of Washington, told Buzzfeed News. Hurricane Dorian. A hurricane is heading toward Florida’s east coast, where it is expected to make landfall on Monday morning as a Category 4 storm unless conditions change. Residents of the state are stocking up on emergency supplies and preparing to potentially evacuate. So far, the storm has caused power outages and flooding in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the British Virgin Islands, and the Puerto Rican islands of Vieques and Culebra. Amazon owns Alexa. Amazon’s Echo, a voice-controlled speaker that listens to and records you in your home and responds to the name Alexa, appears to be crowding out other uses of that name. Last year, the number of children in Britain to receive that name dropped by more than 50 percent, Reuters reports. Morbid marsupials. Male Kalutas, marsupials the size of mice found in Northwestern Australia, expire after they mate.“We found that males only mate during one highly synchronized breeding season and then they all die,” Genevieve Hayes, a vertebrate ecologist and the lead author of a new Journal of Zoology study on sex and death among Kalutas, told the New York Times. For more on these stories and many others, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, and sign-up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, and corrections to [email protected].
|
Benjamin Soloway
|
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/30/call-to-re-arm-farc-threatens-colombias-peace-process-mumps-iran-failure-to-launch-boris-prorogue/
|
2019-08-30 09:28:14+00:00
| 1,567,171,694 | 1,569,416,991 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
197,006 |
foreignpolicy--2019-09-05--Afghan Peace Deal Stumbles
| 2019-09-05T00:00:00 |
foreignpolicy
|
Afghan Peace Deal Stumbles
|
\What’s on tap: A tentative agreement between the Taliban and the United States faces new roadblocks as new violence rocks Kabul, a weakened Islamic States is using cows as suicide bombers, Erdogan issues migrant threat to spur progress on Syria safe zone. Pompeo won’t sign. Efforts to broker a peace deal between the Taliban and the U.S. government is running into headwinds in both Kabul and Washington, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reportedly refusing to sign an agreement brokered by the U.S. special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad. According to a report in Time, Pompeo has refused to put his signature on the “agreement in principle” hammered by out in nine rounds of talks between Khalilzad and Taliban negotiators. The deal would take the first tentative steps toward peace in the war-torn nation, but it doesn’t ensure several crucial things: the continued presence of U.S. counterterrorism forces; the survival of the pro-U.S. Afghan government; or a permanent ceasefire. Does it matter? It’s not clear that Pompeo’s refusal to sign the agreement is a dealbreaker. Khalilzad himself may sign it, or the United States and the Taliban may simply issue a joint statement, according to Time. But this “diplomatic sleight of hand” does not address the core concerns current and former officials have raised: that once a withdrawal is underway, it will be irreversible, risking the hard-won progress toward building a stable Afghanistan. Meanwhile, in Kabul… Khalilzad’s efforts are also running into trouble in Kabul, where the government raised questions on Wednesday about the deal. Writing on Twitter, a government spokesperson said provisions of the deal require “serious debate and revision.” Violence rolls on. With the fate of Khalilzad’s peace efforts in question, violence in Afghanistan shows no sign of abating. The Taliban claimed responsibility for a suicide car bombing on Thursday, that killed 10 people and wounded another 42 in Kabul’s diplomatic quarter. It was the second car bombing in the capital this week. Erdogan threatens to ‘open the gates.’ A frustrated Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened Thursday to “open the gates” to allow more than 3 million Syrian refugees to leave Turkey for Western countries unless progress is made to establish a “safe zone” inside Syria. Washington and Ankara have been engaged for months in talks to establish the safe zone in northeast Syria, where the U.S.-backed Kurdish militia, which Turkey considers a terrorist organization, are still fighting the remnants of the Islamic State. Officials recently set up a joint operations center there to coordinate the efforts. Washington and Ankara still at odds. But Erdogan said differences still remain on what exactly the safe zone will look like. He did not elaborate, but Ankara likely wants the Kurds out of the area. For their part, the Kurds think the safe zone is off to a good start. U.S. and Kurdish troops conducted a joint patrol Wednesday in a town on the border with Turkey, according to reports. Sitting ducks. As China develops ever more sophisticated long-range missiles, urgent changes are needed to American basing in Japan, Tanner Greer writes for Foreign Policy. If a conflict with Beijing broke out tomorrow, there is a very real chance that America’s frontline forces in Japan, currently cordoned off into a number of easily attacked bases, would be crippled in the first moments. Enrichment. Iran continues to increase its stockpile of enriched uranium and is progressively breaching the limits of the 2015 nuclear agreement, according to an IAEA report obtained by Reuters. On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani went further, ordering that limits on Iranian nuclear research and development be ended. Cash for ships. The U.S. State Department has offered the captains of vessels carrying Iranian goods large sums of cash in order to pilot their ships to countries where they will be seized, in what amounts to the latest attempt by Washington to pressure Iran, the Financial Times reports. Memoir wars. The Pentagon is attempting to quash the publication of a memoir authored by a speech writer for former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. The Pentagon has threatened Retired Navy Cmdr. Guy Snodgrass with a range of consequences if he is deemed to have violated Mattis’s trust, the Washington Post reports. Wargames for a new era. A series of war games this fall led by the Joint Staff will evaluate new battle plans for fighting China and Russia, in the latest sign that the Pentagon is shifting from two decades of fighting in the Middle East to prepare itself for a future that could include a sophisticated, high-tempo war with a peer adversary. China weighs in on North Korea. With both Beijing and Pyongyang attempting to revive stalled diplomatic initiatives with the United States, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said during a visit to North Korea that he would like to see “closer communication and cooperation on the international stage” between his country and the North, the South China Morning Post reports. For more news and analysis from Foreign Policy and around the world, subscribe to Morning Brief, delivered weekday mornings. Unconventional methods. Increasingly weakened by four years of fighting against U.S.-backed Iraqi forces and reluctant to use humans to carry bombs, the Islamic State has resorted to a new tactic: Cows. Two cows strapped with explosives were killed Saturday when the bombs detonated remotely on the outskirts of Al Islah, Iraq, according to the New York Times. The explosion damaged nearby houses but did not harm any people. The use of animals as “booby traps” is not new in the region, the Times writes. During the civil war in Iraq from 2003 to 2009, Al Qaeda in Iraq placed bombs inside and under dead livestock. And in Afghanistan, donkeys have been used to carry bombs targeting NATO forces. Still, the Times writes “using cows to deliver bombs is an odd strategy in Iraq, where the animals are prized both for meat and milk.” Preparing for 2020. Intelligence and law enforcement officials huddled with American tech companies for a day-long meeting on Wednesday to discuss election security ahead of the 2020 election. The meeting comes as both Washington and Silicon Valley attempt to prevent another effort by Russia or another foreign power to meddle in American politics. WikiLeaks. The imprisoned hacktivist Jeremy Hammond was called to testify before a Virginia grand jury that is believed to be investigating WikiLeaks hacker Julian Assange. Hammond was an early WikiLeaks source, and the request for his testimony raises questions about the scope of the U.S. government’s case against Assange, Gizmodo reports. AI radar. The American military is using radar data in the Pacific to build an artificial intelligence model of air traffic in the region and to detect a possible sneak attack, Defense One reports. Spy satellites. After President Donald Trump tweeted an astoundingly high-resolution image of a scorched Iranian launchpad following a failed rocket launch, amateur astronomers quickly identified the source of the image as a highly classified U.S. spy satellite, NPR reports. Mystery explosion. Examinations of isotopes sprayed into the atmosphere following a mysterious explosion in Russia indicate that they likely originated from a nuclear reactor, but the application of that system remains unknown, Nature reports. “This guy scares the living shit out of me.” — President George W. Bush’s 2008 description of then-Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as quoted in a New York Times Magazine account of how close Israel and the United States came to going to war with Iran. Stuxnet mystery. For years, students of the Stuxnet virus, which infected Iran’s nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz some time in 2007, have wondered how American intelligence managed to infect the plant’s computer systems. Now, journalists Kim Zetter and Huib Modderkolk reveal in Yahoo News that the virus was delivered by an Iranian mole recruited by Dutch intelligence. That’s it for today. To get this newsletter in your inbox, subscribe here or sign-up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or typos to [email protected].
|
Elias Groll and Lara Seligman
|
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/05/afghan-peace-deal-stumbles/
|
2019-09-05 12:39:32+00:00
| 1,567,701,572 | 1,569,331,318 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
197,031 |
foreignpolicy--2019-09-08--How to Keep the Colombian Peace Deal Alive
| 2019-09-08T00:00:00 |
foreignpolicy
|
How to Keep the Colombian Peace Deal Alive
|
How to Keep the Colombian Peace Deal Alive MEDELLÍN, Colombia—Last week, several former commanders of Colombia’s largely demobilized rebel group the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) released a video in which they announced a “new phase of armed struggle.” Only three years ago, those same men—known best by wartime aliases, Iván Márquez and Jesús Santrich—participated in negotiating the end of a decadeslong conflict with the Colombian government. But in the video, their presence was a stark reminder of the fragility of the peace accords on the ground. Almost three years on from the finalization of the peace agreement, Colombia’s implementation of the promises made in the accords has lagged significantly. Colombian President Iván Duque will likely face increased pressure from his own party’s leader, former President Álvaro Uribe, to respond to this latest salvo from the FARC with more aggressive action. “In Colombia, there was this massive fire that was the armed conflict, and this fire almost totally went out, there was only a little bit left,” said Ariel Ávila, the deputy director of the Peace and Reconciliation Foundation, a Colombian research group. “President Duque has to decide what he’s going to throw on it: gasoline or water.” In response to the rearmament, Duque announced he would send a specialized military force in search of the rebels and offered a 3 billion-peso, or $882,000, reward for the capture of those in the 32-minute video announcement. But to prevent former fighters from potentially joining Márquez and Santrich, Duque should also commit to implementing the accords agreed to in 2016, experts say, although this would require a significant break from his political allies. Under Duque, much of the implementation of the accords has frozen to a near standstill. Nearly one-third of the accord’s 578 provisions have not been implemented at all, and the implementation of another third has barely begun, according to an April report by the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. Those failures represent “death by a thousand cuts” to the peace in Colombia. In particular, the government has failed to move quickly on rural development and effectively reintegrating former rank-and-file FARC members, as well as addressing a pattern of hundreds of targeted killings of social and community leaders since 2016. Those failures represent “death by a thousand cuts” to the peace in Colombia, according to Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America. Reintegration of former combatants and restitution to victims have been consistently underfunded. Rural zones of the country once dominated by the FARC remain undeveloped. Many are now under territorial control of other illegal armed groups. Threats, attacks, and assassinations of human rights defenders have surged countrywide, leaving a body count of 738 since 2016, according to the think tank Indepaz, exceeding pre-peace accord numbers. Demobilized FARC guerrillas have faced violent attacks as well. Some 137 former fighters, as well as victims including the 7-month-old baby of a demobilized guerrilla member, have been assassinated since the signing of the agreement. Many more have received threats, often from criminal groups claiming links to Colombia’s paramilitary groups and actors claiming to represent active remnants of those groups themselves. The lack of security, said the former FARC guerrilla Hugo Fernando Ramírez, caused many demobilized combatants to reconsider the future of peace. “More than one of us have had to think about it,” he said, cradling his 3-month-old baby in his arms in his home in the country’s capital of Bogotá. “There aren’t any guarantees for what awaits us. What are we waiting for? A bullet in the head? Years in prison? Who knows.” Ramírez is one of many of the 13,000 former FARC guerrillas who say they want to continue pushing for peace. But an estimated 2,200 others have left the demobilization areas or never demobilized to begin with. There are an estimated 20 dissident bands of the FARC that never submitted to the peace accords and may consolidate further in future. Despite that, the FARC is not likely to return in any significant way to the widespread insurgency of the past. The announcement presents Duque with an opportunity to shift the trajectory of his government and, in turn, the future of peace in Colombia. Bolstering the same policies that have been long underfunded and slow-walked by the government will be key to keeping a growing number of ex-FARC members from joining the dissidents as a response to Márquez, said Isacson and Ávila. Chief among those policies is the reintegration of former combatants, including providing economic opportunities for ex-combatants and guaranteeing legal and, perhaps most importantly, physical security to stop fears of being targeted. Duque’s administration should “make sure they know that there are economic opportunities, that the government is going to stop dragging its feet because of this, and, also, that the government is keeping an eye on you,” Isacson said. But the embattled president faces major hurdles to even inch in that direction. The once-moderate politician must consider supporters of ex-president Uribe—the base of Duque’s own political party, Democratic Center, which has railed against the accords. “A lot of Colombians are angry, and rightfully, at Márquez and at the FARC,” Isacson said. “They [Uribe’s followers] are going to take that anger and channel it into hatred against the entire process.” With all eyes on the Colombian government, the coming months will determine both if Duque’s words and actions will escalate or defuse the situation. Duque may be able to break ground in implementing the accords by reaching out to opposition parties in Colombia’s Congress, which have urged him and ex-combatants to implement the accords. The former FARC commander Rodrigo Londoño, alias “Timochenko,” who is now a leader of the FARC’s iteration as a political party, said he rejected the call to arms, saying it violated the group’s promises in the accords, and urged Duque to implement the agreement, calling it a “a route to a stable and lasting peace.” Although the chances of those political opposites reaching across the aisle seems unlikely, Sergio Guzmán, the director of the Bogotá-based organization Colombia Risk Analysis, said more moderate parties may soon begin making a harder push for implementation of the accords. “The result of this announcement has made a lot of people wake up and realize the fragility of peace,” Guzmán said. Much of the stalled process has been a product of an embattled government. While Duque’s party, the Democratic Center, holds the presidency, it does not hold a majority in Congress, leaving the country’s government in a deadlock. Duque has been unable to move forward on a number of key issues, including corruption and economic reforms, setting up an uphill battle for his second year in the presidency. Key facets of the accords—such as victims’ restitution and rural development—have been bogged down by chronic underfunding and bureaucratic obstacles, while the country’s transitional justice system has been openly attacked by Duque’s government. Those obstacles still loom as large as ever for Duque, but Guzmán said it’s those exact programs that may soon be used as a “bargaining chip” by the starkly divided government to make progress on other agendas—namely, pushing forward Duque’s budget proposal, which has been embroiled in political conflict. “The question now becomes, what are the things the government is going to bargain for to implement peace?” he said. The situation has only complicated already-tense relations with Venezuela. Colombian officials say that the rebels are seeking refuge in the neighboring country and that the embattled government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is rearming the FARC dissidents to destabilize Colombia. Tensions were already kindled between the two countries, but the possibility of the group leaning on the Venezuelan border for refuge—as Colombia’s other guerrilla group, the National Liberation Army (ELN), has already done—could escalate conflict. With all eyes on the Colombian government, the coming months will determine both if Duque’s words and actions will escalate or defuse the situation and how many guerrillas may follow the lead of Márquez and other rebels, said Ávila. The day after the announcement, Colombian troops killed nine dissidents formerly belonging to the FARC in an airstrike in the southern jungle zone of Caquetá. The military operation was what Duque called “a clear message” to the dissidents to lay down their weapons. The reception of that message could usher in “a new wave of violence” from remnants of the FARC and of paramilitary groups, said Ávila. But Ramírez, the demobilized former fighter—who now works on a peace-building project to bring tourism to Colombia’s former conflict zones—said he’s still holding on to hope that those who laid down their arms can push forward. “There are a huge number of us who have hope to continue implementing the process despite the obstacles,” he said, “despite all of the valleys they’ve put in front of us.”
|
Megan Janetsky
|
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/08/how-to-keep-the-colombian-peace-deal-alive-farc-duque-uribe-colombia/
|
2019-09-08 09:44:51+00:00
| 1,567,950,291 | 1,569,330,832 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
197,384 |
foreignpolicy--2019-10-18--Why the United States Is So Bad at Peace Talks
| 2019-10-18T00:00:00 |
foreignpolicy
|
Why the United States Is So Bad at Peace Talks
|
Why the United States Is So Bad at Peace Talks Last month, U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the Afghan peace process, closing off for the time being a rare opening to resolve a long, stagnant, and unpopular war. Whatever one thinks of the specifics of the deal that the U.S. representative at the talks, Zalmay Khalilzad, had nearly finalized with the Taliban, the episode was a perfect demonstration of the conflicted, often self-defeating view of peace agreements that mires U.S. foreign policy. Trump’s decision followed months of criticism in Washington that the talks were legitimizing the Taliban, delegitimizing the Afghan government, giving away too much, extracting too little. Some of the critiques were reasonable. Most ignored basic realities: Afghanistan is not a winnable war, the years-old stalemate is unacceptable to most Americans and all Afghans, and a political settlement—albeit one that requires painful compromises—is the only remotely desirable way out of the dilemma. Yet when a possible path opened to such an agreement, much of the American polity recoiled. The incongruity is hardly unique to Afghanistan. Most U.S. policymakers from several administrations would like to see peace agreements end civil wars across the Middle East and Africa. The same is true of nuclear pacts with Iran or North Korea, if one defines these as peace agreements of a sort. (The latest attempt at talks between Washington and Pyongyang on Oct. 5 broke down after less than a day.) In each case, the United States is confronted with a problem that has persisted for years or decades, and most U.S. officials by now want to escape an unfavorable status quo. Diplomatic efforts to do so, however, encounter similar criticisms: too much offered, too little extracted, too kind to U.S. enemies, and too harsh to U.S. friends. When such criticism swells, leaders tend either to abandon existing agreements or to deprioritize diplomacy in favor of politically safer displays of toughness. In turn, the United States tends to pour money into each standoff; it tightens sanctions without halting an adversary’s nuclear and missile programs; its troops kill and are killed, with little prospect of altering the battlefield. Wars or lower-level conflicts grind on by the year and decade. Talks do occur in each conflict but rarely as the top U.S. priority behind which all levers of power align—and rarely with a realistic vision of the outcome. That is what must change. The first is the mirage of a perfect deal. The United States has good reasons to want North Korea to denuclearize, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to resign, Iran to pull back from the Arab world. None of this is plausible. An administration that softens its demands, however, invites attacks that all too often rest on magical thinking—that with the same amount of compromise by the United States, talks could have yielded much greater sacrifice by the other side. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu memorably told the U.S. Congress about the Iran nuclear agreement, “the alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.” U.S. negotiators, however, are not incompetent. The “better deal” is usually a chimera, the fantasy impedes tangible achievement, and the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Combative half-measures too often simply reinforce the undesirable status quo. The second impediment is the allure of hard power. The American public mostly opposes major new military commitments, especially for Middle Eastern wars, but there is little political down side to ordering sanctions, airstrikes, Special Forces raids, or carrier deployments that theoretically squeeze an adversary. Officials can defend such moves as tough and pragmatic, and the cost will not exceed public tolerance unless something goes badly wrong. The problem is that these combative half-measures too often simply reinforce the undesirable status quo. All the while, proliferators proliferate, the defense budget spills across Middle Eastern battlefields, American casualties increase, local casualties soar, and resolutions inch further away. The third problem is contempt for one’s adversary. It is difficult for a superpower to sit down as apparent equals with leaders of a rogue state and harder still with an overachieving local militia. To justify doing so, officials are tempted to wrangle over who talks to whom—must the Taliban speak first to Washington or to Kabul? Pyongyang to Washington or a multilateral consortium? Tehran to Washington or an intermediary like Oman? Sequencing and the “shape of the table” matter in each of these negotiations, but they are never the core of a dispute. Too often the trifles of process prevent for years any serious discussion of substance. Fourth is opposition from long-standing local partners who feel threatened. For every example like South Korean President Moon Jae-in nudging the United States toward diplomacy with North Korea, there are many more like Netanyahu and the Gulf monarchies blasting the Iran deal, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani condemning the Taliban talks, and the United Arab Emirates and Egypt opposing any political settlement that makes room for Islamists. These partners typically have more to lose than Washington does, and it is reasonable that they fear a U.S. drift toward their adversaries. If merely backing familiar allies could resolve these conflicts, however, peace talks would not be necessary. Washington’s clients end up holding it hostage. By contrast, the United States’ most important global allies are usually quick to support peace agreements—and sometimes, so are its global rivals. Washington’s tumultuous relationships with China and Russia have not stopped both in recent years from assisting the Taliban talks, acceding to the Iran deal, and joining the six-party talks when they were the main thrust of the North Korea effort. European powers consistently backed all three. An earnest peace effort can create remarkable bedfellows. The United States has not lost the ability to secure extraordinary diplomatic breakthroughs when it wants to. To do so, however, will mean defining peace agreements as the United States’ top priority and exit strategy from legacy conflicts and then trading what is necessary to get a tolerable agreement. This might imply accepting, for example, that the United States can contain but not dismantle the North Korean nuclear program; incorporate but not defeat the Afghan Taliban; stabilize but not eliminate Iran’s influence in the Arab world. Even such narrower objectives will require the United States to align all instruments of national power in pursuit of them. The United States eventually did this in Afghanistan; in 2018-2019 it began specifying a political settlement—rather than the military campaign—as its top overall priority. Within months, American diplomats transformed the peace process and rallied the world behind it. The Obama administration likewise defined a nuclear agreement with Iran as its main goal in the country and devoted several years of diplomacy and sanctions policy to it. Whatever one thinks of the resulting agreement, the strategy worked. In Afghanistan, it is unclear whether the peace deal is truly dead or last month’s cancellation simply reflects Trump’s idiosyncratic negotiating style. The result of the near-miss, however, is to revert to a stalemate that every month claims (depending on the estimate) thousands of Afghan lives, two American lives, and almost $4 billion from the U.S. government. The Iran and North Korea nuclear programs, and the proliferating wars of the Arab world, have similarly dogged the United States for a generation. Vastly better outcomes are achievable on each, but only if U.S. policymakers reject unacceptable status quos, identify their priorities, and accept compromises to achieve them.
|
Johnny Walsh
|
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/18/peace-talks-afghanistan-north-korea-united-states-bad/
|
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:29:32 +0000
| 1,571,419,772 | 1,571,418,133 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
197,500 |
foreignpolicy--2019-11-12--As Assad Gains Ground, New Syria Talks Offer Little Hope of Peace
| 2019-11-12T00:00:00 |
foreignpolicy
|
As Assad Gains Ground, New Syria Talks Offer Little Hope of Peace
|
While senior diplomats believe the latest round of U.N.-sponsored Syria peace talks is a promising though limited step forward, experts and insiders say there is little reason to believe a newly formed constitutional committee that met in Geneva this month will yield concrete results. After more than eight years of war, prospects for reaching a political solution in Syria through the Geneva talks appear dim. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has made it clear that his government is not bound by any agreements a pro-Damascus delegation may strike at the U.N.-brokered talks in Geneva, a constitutional committee engineered by Moscow; meanwhile the Turkish-backed opposition continues to make unrealistic demands for a political transition that would lead to Assad’s removal. “The problem is neither side is serious about negotiations. The regime is not going to change because of this pressure—they are just going to wait, even if it means waiting years until [U.S. President Donald] Trump leaves office,” one U.S. State Department official said. On the other side: “The opposition has always demanded, essentially, the death of the regime, which also isn’t a serious negotiating position.” “The problem is neither side is serious about negotiations.” But as discussions wrapped up last Friday, Geir Pedersen, the United Nations envoy for Syria, said the talks went better than expected, adding that the 150 delegates from the Syrian government, opposition, and civil society who represent the newly formed Syrian Constitutional Committee planned to reconvene for another round on Nov. 25. The hope is that the Geneva talks will serve as a door opener for more meaningful dialogue between the major players—Assad, Russia, Turkey and the United States—or at least as a vehicle by which the West can sign off on any solution reached by the regional powers. The Constitutional Committee is widely viewed as “the most promising however limited step forward on Syria,” a senior U.S. government official told Foreign Policy. “Having a process is still seen as valuable—by some, just for the sake of having a process, and by others, because they hope it can become a vehicle for background understandings that are basically made between non-Syrians,” said Aron Lund, a fellow with the Century Foundation. The ongoing conflict is expected to come up during a much-anticipated meeting this week in Washington between Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. But experts and insiders say there is no clear path to a real political solution—and Assad has no incentive to compromise. The Syrian president has all but won the war militarily with the help of his Russian backers. Syria’s last rebel stronghold, in the northwestern province of Idlib, has been devastated by Russian and Syrian airstrikes and is now primarily controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, an extremist group linked to al Qaeda. Meanwhile, the Syrian Kurdish militias, which maintain control of a large chunk of resource-rich land in the northeastern part of the country and argue they are the only indigenous party with any serious leverage over Assad, have been excluded from the Geneva talks due to a Turkish veto. Assad’s negotiating hand has only been strengthened since Trump withdrew U.S. troops from Syria’s border with Turkey in early October, paving the way for a bloody attack on the Kurds. In the absence of U.S. support on the ground, the Kurds were forced to cut a deal with Assad for protection from the Turkish attack, prompting Russian and Syrian regime troops to flow into northeastern Syria for the first time in years. Russian and Turkish troops began joint patrols along a 6-mile-deep stretch of border to the west and east of the Turkish incursion under an Oct. 22 deal inked by Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin. European powers—whose money will be vital if cash-strapped Damascus ever hopes to rebuild the country when the war ends—continue to condition any financial support on evidence of a commitment to a real political transition that would weaken Assad’s grip on power. But they wield a shrinking measure of influence over the shape of Syria’s future, a development that has been furthered by Washington’s wobbly military commitment in the region. “I just see no reason why the Assad regime would change their behavior from their past processes through the Geneva processes, [particularly when they are] moving into parts of northern and eastern Syria without firing a bullet,” said Dana Stroul, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “What incentive do they have?” Back in the summer of 2012, the United States and Russia negotiated the landmark Geneva Communiqué, in the presence of former U.N. Secretary-General and then-Syria envoy Kofi Annan. The Communiqué outlined a road map for a political transition in Syria, presumably ending the reign of the Assad dynasty. The Communiqué envisioned the creation of a transitional government, drawn from the Syrian government and the opposition, with “full executive powers.” This transitional government was to be charged with reviewing the constitution and preparing the grounds for free and fair elections. However, the Communiqué specified that the new transitional governing body would be formed by the “mutual consent” of the parties, ultimately giving Assad a veto. As such, and even though Assad was at the time facing the real threat of military defeat, the agreement never took hold through subsequent rounds of negotiations between 2014 and today. Russia’s entry into the war in September 2015 emboldened Assad, who has largely refused to negotiate any internal reform under UN auspices, let alone yield power to a transitional government. Instead, the Syrian government has promoted its own plan that subordinates a constitutional process and elections to its own control, with the aim of solidifying his grip on power. Former U.S. President Barack Obama’s State Department, led by then-Secretary of State John Kerry, had some degree of success rallying the opposition groups into a more cohesive body. In December 2015, during a conference in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Syrian groups, including previously unrepresented opposition militias, formed the High Negotiations Committee, led by former Syrian Prime Minister Riyad Farid Hijab and which has since been expanded and renamed the Syrian Negotiation Commission, Syria’s main opposition bloc. But Assad has never regarded the splintered opposition as a legitimate negotiating power, U.S. and Syrian sources said. Since the Geneva talks began, each meeting essentially unfolded the same way. The sources described how during a meeting 2014 the regime refused to sit facing opposition representatives, so the delegates ended up seated in an L shape, with one table perpendicular to the other. “All the regime did was sit there and read articles about the infiltration of the opposition on the ground by al Qaeda and other terrorist groups,” the first State Department official said. “None of these meetings were serious,” said one Syrian analyst close to the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Council. “They spend the meetings making fun of each other.” In early 2017, Russia launched a parallel peace effort in Astana (now Nur-Sultan), Kazakhstan, involving Assad, Turkey, and Iran, which led to agreements on a series of “de-escalation zones” around the country. Moscow conceived of Astana as a way to negotiate independent of the west, with the understanding that a formalized outcome at Geneva would be necessary for international recognition. But the West largely rejects the Astana process and continues to condition financial support and easing of sanctions on progress in Geneva. Western diplomats hope Assad will eventually capitulate to their demands in order to get sanctions relief, reconstruction assistance, and normalization of relations with the West. But insiders say Assad’s position has not changed since peace talks between the regime and opposition forces began. “There has never been a serious round of negotiations to resolve the Syrian conflict in Geneva,” the State Department official said. “The regime will destroy the entire country, they will destroy Damascus and everything else, before it negotiates under pressure any kind of reform.” Even before Pedersen’s appointment, the British government privately questioned the wisdom of selecting a new U.N. envoy for Syria, on the grounds that it would create the impression of a diplomatic opening that didn’t exist. Still, the lengthy negotiations have provided a measure of political cover to Syria and its principal military backer Russia, which have cited their support for the Geneva talks as evidence of their commitment to a peaceful settlement while prosecuting a brutal military offensive that has strengthened their military hand and terrorized Syrian civilians. Russia first proposed the Constitutional Committee, the latest iteration of the Geneva talks, in January 2018 at a meeting in the Black Sea resort city of Sochi as part of the Astana process. The committee consists of 150 delegates—50 backed by Assad, 50 opposition representatives, and 50 members of civil society selected by the United Nations. A smaller group of 45 members has been selected to form a constitutional drafting committee. U.N. officials say Pedersen and his team are not naive and that they recognize that the process will only deliver as much or as little as Assad’s government is willing to give. “My hope is that the meetings of the Constitutional Committee can be a door opener to the broader political process,” said Geir Pedersen, the United Nations envoy for Syria. “Of course the Constitutional Committee in itself is not a solution to the conflict. … You are all reminded about that every day when you see the developments on the ground,” Pedersen told reporters in Geneva on Nov. 8, following the first round of talks. “My hope is that the meetings of the Constitutional Committee can be a door opener to the broader political process.” But on the eve of the first round of talks, the Syrian government sought to distance itself from the Constitutional Committee, contending that the Assad-backed delegates were not acting as members of the government and thus lacked the authority to hold him to any commitments made during the dialogue. Assad said as much during an Oct. 31 interview with the official Syrian Arab News Agency. “The Syrian government is not part of these negotiations nor of these discussions,” Assad said, adding that the pro-Syrian government delegation “represents the viewpoint of the Syrian government” but cannot bind Damascus. “Legally, we are not a part of the Constitutional Committee, and this does not imply the government’s recognition of any party,” Assad said. The Syrian leader added that the participation of a pro-Syrian government group in the talks should not be interpreted as a sign that Damascus is committed the U.N.-brokered Geneva diplomatic process. He said he views the Russian-led diplomatic initiative, started in Sochi, as the only legitimate diplomatic way forward. Assad views the Russian-led diplomatic initiative, started in Sochi, as the only legitimate diplomatic way forward. The Syrian government-backed delegation to the Constitutional Committee, meanwhile, has made it clear that the Geneva talks will not result in a halt to war. “Our fight against terrorism is an ongoing war that we started before our meeting … and we will keep up the fight after our meeting until the liberation of the last inch of land of our precious homeland,” Ahmad Kuzbari, the head of the pro-government delegation, said late last month. Meanwhile, the opposition groups represented at the talks—though backed by major powers, primarily Turkey—are fractured and have little power on the ground in Syria. The civil society group is also splintered, with disputes over its composition holding up the committee’s announcement for more than a year. Nasr al-Hariri, the president of the Syrian Negotiation Commission, which appointed members of the opposition delegation to the Constitutional Committee, said “we feel slightly optimistic” after the first round of talks, despite what he characterized as an attempt by the government delegation to “waste time” by steering discussions away from talk of a new constitution. The opposition delegation, he said, pressed the U.N. to focus the next round of talks primarily on the constitution, but he hoped the meetings would ultimately broaden to address some of the most intractable political matters, including the release of tens of thousands of detainees in government custody and the need for “a true and genuine political transition from dictatorship to democracy.” “We can’t say there is a genuine transition in Syria without a new constitution or with the old constitution, which gives the regime, the president, any future president, all the power,” he added. That seemed a tall order, given Assad’s lopsided military advantage over the armed opposition. But Hariri insisted that the Syrian people and the international community still wield considerable leverage over Damascus. “Without a genuine political transition,” he said, “Assad’s regime can’t normalize its relations with states, rejoin the Arab League, obtain relief from sanctions, or reconstruction [funds from the West].” Some observers, however, doubt that Assad will be willing to sacrifice his power to improve his international standing. “This would be hard under any circumstances, but when Assad is effectively winning the war [and] now he’s asked to go to the table to talk to opposition groups that basically control nothing in Syria … he doesn’t understand why he should do that,” Lund said. But the Kurds argue that they are the only indigenous group that Assad will take seriously because their fighters still control a large swath of territory in northeastern Syria. In July 2018, a delegation led by Ilham Ahmed, SDC executive president, traveled to Damascus for negotiations with the Assad regime. There, Ahmed met Ali Mamlouk, one of Assad’s most trusted advisors—a far more senior Syrian government representative than any of the Assad-backed delegates who have traveled to Geneva. The talks fizzled quickly and have not resumed, partially due to U.S. objections to direct negotiations of any form between Assad and the Kurds. “[The United States] told her, ‘This will give Assad more legitimacy’ and ‘We will solve the problems between you and Turkey,’” the Syrian analyst said. Instead of direct negotiations, the U.S. State Department pushed the Kurds to pressure Assad by partnering with the Turkish-backed opposition (TSO)—the very same groups that attacked the northwestern city of Afrin in 2018 and have terrorized the population of northeastern Syria in recent weeks. Despite the atrocities committed in Afrin, Ahmed agreed to meet with the TSO just weeks before the Oct. 6 phone call between Trump and Erdogan. But the TSO rejected the offer and later supported Erdogan’s invasion. The senior government official said the State Department “neither discouraged nor encouraged” contact between the SDC and the regime, but “what we consistently did—and had [the right] under U.S. law to do—was to note that the regime was both an international pariah and target of many international and U.S. sanctions.” Therefore, the United States could not work with the Kurds in “any area where they were paired with the regime.” If the SDC were to “throw their weight into the Assad camp, for example by joining the regime list in the Constitutional Committee, then we’d have to severely limit relations with SDC just like we do other regime backers.” The Kurds believe they have significant economic leverage over Assad: With the help of U.S. troops, they have maintained control of Syria’s rich oil fields, which Assad is eyeing to boost the regime’s all but ruined economy. Since the Turkish incursion, Ahmed has pushed to resume direct negotiations with the regime. The Kurds believe they have significant economic leverage over Assad: With the help of U.S. troops, they have maintained control of Syria’s rich oil fields, which Assad is eyeing to boost the regime’s all but ruined economy. They believe Assad’s Russian backers may support their efforts: Moscow is increasingly unhappy with the Syrian regime’s reliance on Shiite militias that now make up the backbone of its forces after the vast majority were killed in the civil war. The Alawite community, in particularly, is increasingly threatened by Iranian activity in Syria, including Tehran’s attempts to convert Alawites to Shiism. Ahmed has put together a list of conditions to send to the regime, including the departure of all Iranian-backed Shiite militias from Syria, the Syrian analyst said. “If the U.S. and Russia work together to push a direct negotiation between SDF and Assad, that will save the time and efforts of this useless Constitutional Committee,” the analyst said. Although the State Department is unlikely to support direct negotiations between Assad and the Kurds, U.S. diplomats are quietly signaling that they may provide the Kurds more political backing in the Geneva talks. Responding to questions from Foreign Policy, a State Department spokesperson said the United States supports representation of “the populations of northeast Syria” at Geneva, though did not specifically mention the Kurds. “We are focused on a Syrian-owned and Syrian-led political solution … which must include full representation for all Syrians in order to achieve a more peaceful and united Syria,” the spokesperson said. “U.S. officials have consistently made clear that this includes the populations of northeast Syria. We have intervened repeatedly with the U.N. to this end and will continue to do so.” At some point, the reasoning goes, the United States, Russia, and other key powers will need to fashion some political settlement ending the conflict in Syria. The Constitutional Committee could provide a forum, under U.N. auspices, to bless a final peace deal. For some opposition figures, the convening of the Constitutional Committee—despite its limitations—constitutes a victory of sorts because it confers a certain political status on a movement that has seen its political and military fortunes wane. “In the end, when you see the regime sitting beside the opposition, it is giving the opposition legitimacy.” “Any kind of process is a win for us,” a representative of the Syrian opposition coalition told Foreign Policy. “In the end, when you see the regime sitting beside the opposition, it is giving the opposition legitimacy” as a bona fide political force in Syria. Translating seats at the diplomatic table into real influence is another thing. But for now, it’s pretty much the only diplomatic game in town. “The Constitutional Committee may be a diplomatic fig leaf, but it is the best fig leaf available to the U.N. right now,” said Richard Gowan, the U.N. director for the International Crisis Group. “Geneva is unlikely to deliver much quickly, but as the military situation on the ground shifts, it is at least a potential channel for discussing a political settlement in future.”
|
Lara Seligman and Colum Lynch
|
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/12/as-assad-gains-ground-new-syria-talks-offer-little-hope-of-peace/
|
Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:49:58 +0000
| 1,573,598,998 | 1,573,605,317 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
197,848 |
fortruss--2019-01-01--What Peace Deal Right-Wing Continue to Murder Former Communist Militants in Colombia
| 2019-01-01T00:00:00 |
fortruss
|
What Peace Deal? Right-Wing Continue to Murder Former Communist Militants in Colombia
|
What Peace Deal? Right-Wing Continue to Murder Former Communist Militants in Colombia BOGOTA, Colombia – Since Colombia signed a peace agreement with rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) two years ago, 85 members of the former guerrilla movement were murdered, the United Nations said on Monday. Between September 26 and December 26 of this year, “14 former FARC members were murdered,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in his quarterly report on the mission of the global body to Colombia. According to the Colombian special investigation unit, cited by the UN, those responsible for the murders “are illegal armed groups and criminal organizations”. Most of these cases have been linked to the Gulf Clan drug trafficking group, which emerged from unarmed right-wing paramilitaries in 2006, as well as dissidents from the FARC, the guerrilla group of the National Liberation Army (ELN), and remnants of the now-defunct Marxist rebels of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The UN summoned Colombian President Iván Duque, a critic of the peace agreement signed by his predecessor, Juan Manuel Santos, to “reinforce the security plans and strategies for ex-combatants.” In the report, Guterres said he was “hugely” concerned about the number of murders of social leaders and human rights defenders, saying that the UN has verified 163 of the 454 cases since the peace agreement was signed. “Most of the murders were in zones abandoned by former FARC (fighters) and where there is limited state presence,” the UN report said. Colombia’s human rights ombudsman estimates that 423 activists were murdered between 2016 and the end of November. Transformed into a political party since the peace agreement, the FARC has repeatedly criticized the lack of security guarantees for its members. While some 7,000 former combatants have laid down their weapons, Colombia’s peace and reconciliation commission estimates that there are 1,600 dissident rebels. Colombia has been torn apart by more than half a century of armed conflict involving guerrillas, drug traffickers, paramilitaries and state forces, leaving 8 million people dead, missing or displaced.
|
Paul Antonopoulos
|
https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/01/what-peace-deal-right-wing-continue-to-murder-former-communist-militants-in-colombia/
|
2019-01-01 17:39:23+00:00
| 1,546,382,363 | 1,567,554,306 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
212,156 |
foxnews--2019-07-28--Top Trump diplomat shares plans for future peace accords between Israelis Palestinians
| 2019-07-28T00:00:00 |
foxnews
|
Top Trump diplomat shares plans for future peace accords between Israelis, Palestinians
|
EXCLUSIVE: Jason Greenblatt spent 20 years as the top real estate lawyer for New York developer Donald Trump. He worked on numerous deals from his office in the gleaming Trump Tower on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue. But on a summer day this week Greenblatt was in another gleaming skyscraper several blocks away from his old office, this time at the United Nations, working on a geopolitical deal that has proven elusive even to the most seasoned diplomats. He addressed the United Nations Security Council on reaching a comprehensive peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, and he had some blunt words for an institution that for decades has failed to resolve the conflict. "We know that the Palestinians have seen promises made by some, and not kept. But President Trump and his administration desire to make the lives of everyone involved better," Greenblatt said. "Peace will require honesty, and a willingness to consider new ideas as well as courage and hard compromises. This is a time for us to speak to each other candidly, not in stale slogans and talking points." Greenblatt is the president's point man on peace in the Middle East, and in his address, Greenblatt called out the well-worn bromides of the international diplomats who have yielded little progress. "We will only achieve peace by putting forth a plan that both sides hopefully will be interested enough and excited enough to engage on and negotiate on and reach the finish line," he told Fox News in an interview after his Security Council appearance. "We won’t achieve peace by constantly referring to the tired talking points to international law that isn't clear on the subject, to international consensus which doesn't exist on this particular subject." But despite the odds, he is optimistic. BERNIE SANDERS: US POLICY IN MIDEAST CAN'T BE 'PRO-ISREAL, PRO-ISREAL, PRO-ISREAL' "We want tremendous lives for the Palestinians. We want lives that mirror the lives of Israelis as long as we can keep everybody secure. We are not going to get there with slogans." His U.N. visit came one month after the Trump administration sponsored a "Peace to Prosperity" workshop that was held in Bahrain. More than 300 officials, including those from Israel and Arab nations, mingled to chart out an unprecedented effort to bolster the Palestinian economy. The administration plan is to provide $50 billion for desperately needed economic development, that officials say would create 1 million jobs for the Palestinians and take the West Bank, and Gaza, into a new era as well as neighboring economies. But the Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas, not only refused to negotiate...or even participate, they even briefly arrested a Palestinian businessman from Hebron because he attended the event. Abbas has broken off ties to the White House as a protest, in response to the administration moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem last year. "Not only did the Palestinian Authority boycott the conference themselves, they tried to undermine the conference by asking others not to go. What a tremendous opportunity that they missed. Our hope is though, that when they see the political plan, they'll be interested enough to realize that they shouldn't miss this opportunity," says Greenblatt. "I think we are at a unique time in history. We have a very unique president who's not only a huge supporter of Israel, a president who understands Israel’s security needs but a president who wants to help the Palestinians themselves." He is confident that the Palestinian leadership will eventually come around and see that the admiration’s plans are in their interest. "I think when they see the plan, they will see that. Nobody is here to force something on them that doesn’t work, but we are also, as you heard this morning in my remarks, direct enough to say what you've been promised is probably not achievable. Nobody can force a deal on either side but, similarly, the deal that you want is just not there, so the only way you are going to get better lives is by sitting down directly with the Israelis. None of us can get the Palestinians and the Israelis to agree on a deal if they don’t want to do that deal. It’s not for America, it’s not for the European Union, it's not for anyone who is interested in this conflict to make decisions for the Israelis or the Palestinians. We don’t live there, we don’t suffer there, we don’t fight there, we don't die there, it's really up to the two sides to do that." TRUMP'S MIDEAST PEACE PLAN HINGES ON $50B INVESTMENT, OFFERS PALESTINE DEAL OF 'THE CENTURY' Looming over the effort is the shadow of Iran, and Tehran's continued terrorist funding of Hamas and Hezbollah. With that in mind, Greenblatt calls any progress toward peace, "Iran's worst nightmare." And he is convinced that the Palestinians and Israelis... want to end the decades of strife. "In the last two and a half years I've met so many ordinary Palestinians," Greenblatt says. "They want better lives. I'm not saying they don’t want many of the aspirations that they have been promised. But they are just as talented as Israelis, just as eager to have successful lives like Israelis, and I believe that when they see the plan they will realize what lies ahead, what many benefits they can get from the plan. The Israeli side is the same. They just want to live safely and securely. They already have a great economy. They are frustrated, they are skeptical just like the Palestinians and I hope that they too realize that the compromises that we are recommending, suggesting, because ultimately it is up to their government as well, are worth doing." CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP Greenblatt is heading back to the Middle East next week for follow up meetings on the plan. He will be accompanied by the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner and other officials. They will visit Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E. The 60-page political plan for both sides has not yet been released. But Greenblatt is confident that by proposing bold new ideas, President Trump will achieve a success that has long been sought but not yet sealed.
|
Eric Shawn
|
http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/T1XV1K8omF8/trump-israel-palestine-peace-greenblatt-un
|
2019-07-28 15:53:00+00:00
| 1,564,343,580 | 1,567,535,563 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
214,316 |
france24--2019-02-03--Central African Republic reaches peace deal with armed groups
| 2019-02-03T00:00:00 |
france24
|
Central African Republic reaches peace deal with armed groups
|
FLORENT VERGNES/AFP | A man shows shell casings of bullets fired by the UN peacekeeping force MINUSCA and Central African troops, in PK5 district, in Bangui, on April 9, 2018. A peace deal has been reached between the Central African Republic government and 14 armed groups in their first-ever direct dialogue, potentially ending years of conflict in the country, the United Nations and African Union announced Saturday. The impoverished, landlocked nation has been rocked by violence since 2013 when mainly Muslim Selaka rebels ousted then president Francois Bozizé, prompting reprisals from mostly Christian militias and interreligious, intercommunal fighting. UN peacekeepers were deployed in 2014. Thousands of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced in a conflict that has sent two people to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The deal, the seventh since 2012, was announced on Twitter by the government of President Faustin-Archange Touadera just a day after African Union (AU) and UN-sponsored talks in Khartoum were suspended amid disagreements over amnesty. "A peace agreement has been reached," said the tweet. "This agreement should be initialled tomorrow (Sunday) and its signing will take place in Bangui in a few days". "I am determined to work with the president and his government to address the concerns of our brothers who took up arms," said Central African Republic's Cabinet Director Firmin Ngrebada, according to the UN. On Sunday, the parties will sign a draft of the agreement, which focuses on power-sharing and transitional justice, Sudan's state media reported, citing Sudan's chief negotiator Atta al-Manan. The final deal is expected to be signed on Wednesday. Talks began January 24 in Khartoum. "This is a great day for Central African Republic and all its people," said the AU commissioner for peace and security, Smail Chergui. The fighting has carried the high risk of genocide, the UN has warned. The conflict began in 2013 when predominantly Muslim Seleka rebels seized power in the capital, Bangui. Largely Christian anti-Balaka militias fought back. Scores of mosques were burned. Priests and other religious leaders were killed. Many Muslims fled the country after mobs decapitated and dismembered some in the streets. The conflict has also uprooted more than one million people, the UN said, and had until now shown little sign of abating. The vicious fighting in a country known more for coups than interreligious violence was so alarming that Pope Francis made a bold visit in 2015, removing his shoes and bowing his head at the Central Mosque in the last remaining Muslim neighbourhood of the capital, Bangui. "Together we say 'no' to hatred," the pope said. The violence has never disappeared, intensifying and spreading last year after a period of relative peace as armed groups battled over lands rich in gold, diamonds and uranium. After more than 40 people were killed in a rebel attack on a displaced persons camp in November, both the leader of the 13,000-strong UN peacekeeping mission and the country's prime minister both acknowledged shortcomings in the response. "I knew that we did not have all the necessary means to protect our people," the prime minister said. In a grim report last year marking five years of the conflict, the UN children's agency said fighters often target civilians rather than each other, attacking health facilities and schools, mosques and churches and camps for displaced people. At least half of the more than 640,000 people displaced are children, it said, and thousands are thought to have joined the armed groups, often under pressure. Last month the chief of Central African Republic's soccer federation appeared at the ICC for the first time since he was arrested last year in France on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona is accused of leading the anti-Balaka for at least a year early in the fighting. In November 2018 another Central African Republic militia leader and lawmaker, Alfred Yekatom, made his first ICC appearance, accused of crimes including murder, torture and using child soldiers. He allegedly commanded some 3,000 fighters in a predominantly Christian militia in and around the capital early in the fighting. He was arrested last year after firing gunshots in parliament. So far no Seleka fighters have been publicly targeted by the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda. As the peace talks began last month, the Norwegian Refugee Council warned of "catastrophe" if no agreement was reached, saying repeated cycles of violence in one of the world's poorest nations had "pushed people’s resistance to breaking point." A majority of Central African Republic's 2.9 million people urgently need humanitarian support, the group said. On Thursday, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to extend an arms embargo on Central African Republic for a year but raised the possibility that it could be lifted.
|
FRANCE 24
|
https://www.france24.com/en/20190203-car-central-african-republic-reaches-7th-peace-deal-armed-groups-balaka-seleka-touadera
|
2019-02-03 10:05:39+00:00
| 1,549,206,339 | 1,567,549,797 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
216,119 |
france24--2019-07-05--In South Sudan daring to hope for peace
| 2019-07-05T00:00:00 |
france24
|
In South Sudan, daring to hope for peace
|
After five years of brutal civil war in South Sudan, a peace deal signed last year by President Salva Kiir and his opponent Riek Machar is providing hope at last. Our reporters went to Bentiu, one of the cities worst affected by the war and home to 100,000 displaced people. Our team also witnessed negotiations between former enemies who are now praying side by side for a shared future. Nine months after the ratification of a peace deal by South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir and SPLM-IO rebel leader Riek Machar, violence in the country is subsiding. Several people have admittedly been killed since then, but far fewer than what the country has seen in five years of civil war. Since December 15, 2013, the armed conflict between supporters of Salva Kiir and those of Riek Machar has left hundreds of thousands dead and forced four million people to flee their homes. Today, despite difficulties in negotiating the peace agreement, the signatories are for now keeping their promises. Rebels and members of the government meet regularly to negotiate the details of the deal. Rebel generals have even been welcomed at an army base they had attacked many times. Nevertheless, the violence has not completely stopped. In November, more than 150 women who had gone to get food rations were attacked by soldiers, beaten and raped. The news made headlines around the world. Since then, the United Nations has been patrolling to ensure the women’s safety and to try to prevent further violence from breaking out. In this report, our teams take you to Bentiu, one of the cities most affected by the war. Located near the country's oil reserves, capital of Unity State and nerve centre of the conflict, it has been the scene of countless clashes between the army and the rebels. It is here that the worst massacres of recent years took place. Our reporters went to meet victims of the fighting, who are gradually returning to the city. They also visited the country's largest camp for internally displaced people, near Bentiu. Nearly 100,000 people live there, under the protection of UN peacekeepers. Finally, our reporters were able to attend the peace negotiations between the former enemies, who today are praying side by side for a shared future.
|
FRANCE 24
|
https://www.france24.com/en/20190705-reporters-south-sudan-civil-war-peace-deal-rebels-salva-kiir-riek-machar-women-bentiu
|
2019-07-05 15:40:21+00:00
| 1,562,355,621 | 1,567,536,826 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
216,425 |
france24--2019-08-05--US Taliban push for peace as violence rocks Afghanistan
| 2019-08-05T00:00:00 |
france24
|
US, Taliban push for peace as violence rocks Afghanistan
|
STR, AFP | Afghan security personnel investigate the site of a bombing in Kabul on August 4, 2019. The US and the Taliban have made "excellent progress" in the latest round of talks in Doha to craft a peace deal, Washington's Afghanistan envoy said on Monday. The foes have been meeting in Qatar since Saturday for an eighth round of talks to thrash out a historic accord that would slash the US military presence in Afghanistan. In return, the United States is demanding that the Taliban prevent the country from being used as a safe haven for jihadist groups including al Qaeda. "Building on excellent progress in Kabul last week, I've spent the last few days in Doha, focused on the remaining issues in completing a potential deal with the Taliban," tweeted US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. The conclusion of a deal "would allow for a conditions-based troop withdrawal", he wrote adding that "we have made excellent progress." Speaking on condition of anonymity, a Taliban official told the Associated Press that the talks had helped resolve differences over US troop withdrawal and keeping jihadist groups out of Afghanistan. A deal between the two sides could pave the way for direct talks between the government of President Ashraf Ghani, although the insurgents view his administration as illegitimate. Khalilzad said that he was flying to New Delhi "for pre-scheduled meetings to further build international consensus in support of the Afghan Peace Process". "My team and Taliban representatives will continue to discuss technical details as well as steps and mechanisms required for a succesful implementation of the four-part agreement we've been working toward since my appointment," he tweeted. "Agreement on these details is essential," the US envoy added. The four pillars of any deal would be a US withdrawal from Afghanistan, a commitment by the militants not to shelter jihadists, intra-Afghan dialogue, and a ceasefire. The US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and toppled the Taliban, accusing it of harbouring al Qaeda jihadists who claimed the September 11 attacks against the US that killed almost 3,000 people. But despite a rapid conclusion to the conventional phase of the war, the Taliban has waged a formidable insurgency, bogging down US troops for years. Washington wants to strike a peace deal with the Taliban by the end of this month -- ahead of Afghanistan's presidential election that is slated for September 28. US President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House last week that "we've made a lot of progress. We're talking". However, even if the US and the Taliban come to an agreement, massive questions remain over what would follow an accord. The US has said any withdrawal of its troops would be "conditions-based", whereas the Taliban has so far insisted on a full pullout of foreign forces before making commitments of its own. Washington sees an agreement with the Taliban as a precursor to the insurgents then striking a peace deal with Afghanistan's government. The Afghan government has formed a negotiating team for talks with the insurgents that diplomats hope could be held later this month. The United Nations has said that civilian casualty rates in Afghanistan jumped back to record levels last month, after a dip earlier in the year. More than 1,500 civilians were killed or wounded in the conflict in July, the highest monthly toll so far in 2019 and the deadliest single month since May 2017.
|
FRANCE 24
|
https://www.france24.com/en/20190805-violence-afghanistan-usa-taliban-talks
|
2019-08-05 09:20:41+00:00
| 1,565,011,241 | 1,567,534,849 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
217,850 |
france24--2019-12-09--World leaders speak after Ukraine peace talks uniting Zelensky, Putin in Paris
| 2019-12-09T00:00:00 |
france24
|
World leaders speak after Ukraine peace talks uniting Zelensky, Putin in Paris
|
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, French President Emmanuel Macron, Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel during a summit on the conflict in Ukraine at the Élysée Palace on December 9, 2019. For the first first time ever, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with Russian President Vladimir Putin for peace talks at the Élysée Palace on Monday. The talks were hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron with German Chancellor Angela Merkel also in attendance. Russian leader Vladimir Putin on Monday met Ukranian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky for the first time on Monday at a Paris summit aimed at agreeing measures to help end five years of conflict in the east of Ukraine. No comprehensive peace deal is expected from the meeting, mediated by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, but diplomats hope the summit will help to build trust between the two men. Four-way talks at the Élysée Palace were followed by the first-ever bilateral meeting between ex-KGB agent Putin – in power for two decades – and ex-comedian Zelensky, who won the presidency this year, Ukrainian and Russian presidential sources said. The four leaders were due to meet again over dinner, before a joint news conference. "The leaders have been discussing the draft statement and each clause is being discussed in a lively way," said Zelensky's deputy chief of staff, Kyrylo Tymoshenko.
|
FRANCE 24
|
https://www.france24.com/en/20191209-ukraine-peace-talks-paris-putin-zelensky-macron-merkel-elysee
|
Mon, 09 Dec 2019 19:40:55 GMT
| 1,575,938,455 | 1,575,938,156 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
361,363 |
newsweek--2019-01-28--Will Trump Withdraw From Afghanistan Next Taliban US Agree to Peace Framework Principles
| 2019-01-28T00:00:00 |
newsweek
|
Will Trump Withdraw From Afghanistan Next? Taliban, U.S. Agree to Peace Framework Principles
|
U.S. and Taliban representatives have agreed the framework of a peace deal to allow American forces to withdraw from Afghanistan, negotiators have confirmed. The draft framework could form the basis for a full American withdrawal from Afghanistan, where U.S. forces have been battling Taliban—and more recently the Islamic State militant group (ISIS)—fighters for 17 years. In exchange, the Taliban will agree to prevent international extremist groups from using Afghanistan to launch attacks and commit to a ceasefire and talks with the Afghan government. According to The New York Times, the chief U.S. negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad said Monday, “We have a draft of the framework that has to be fleshed out before it becomes an agreement.” “The Taliban have committed, to our satisfaction, to do what is necessary that would prevent Afghanistan from ever becoming a platform for international terrorist groups or individuals,” he added. “We felt enough confidence that we said we need to get this fleshed out, and details need to be worked out.” A senior American official told the Times negotiations were still ongoing, and the draft framework is only the first step towards an elusive peace deal. However, the milestone marks the most significant achievement in nine years of discussions. The unnamed official said the Taliban representatives had requested a break in the negotiations—being held in Qatar—to speak with the group’s leadership about the U.S. demand for talks and a ceasefire between the militants and the government in Kabul. Though reports last week suggested America would agree to full troop withdrawal, U.S. officials told the Times no concrete details had been agreed in this area. Senior U.S. representatives also explained that new high-level talks would begin in late February, with work on technical details of a future deal possibly commencing before. One of the key U.S. demands is that the Taliban agree to keep Afghanistan from being used by terrorist organizations to launch attacks abroad, as Al-Qaeda did on 9/11. Khalilzad said the group had agreed to the demand and to provide guarantees and an enforcement mechanism to ensure the concern was addressed. It is not yet clear what form of power the Taliban would be granted in post-war Afghanistan, nor the means by which they would work with the government in Kabul to prevent a return to violence. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani was briefed by Khalilzad on the progress of the talks before delivering a national address. He warned that any peace deal must not be rushed, though he expressed his desire for an end to the fighting. “We want peace quickly, we want it soon, but we want it with prudence,” Ghani explained said. “Prudence is important so we do not repeat past mistakes.” According to the Associated Press, the president added, “There are values that are not disputable, such as national unity, national sovereignty and territorial integrity.” The government was not represented at the negotiations, the BBC noted. Ghani has previously warned that any discussions of a future interim government or other power-sharing agreement must only be discussed in direct talks between Afghan and Taliban representatives. Khalilzad told the Times he was attempting to convince the Taliban to negotiate the future relationship directly with Kabul, and denied an interim government had been discussed by U.S. representatives. “There are a lot of reports that we have discussed an interim government: No, I have not gotten into any of that discussion,” he explained. “I have not entered into what that could look like with the Taliban—they would like to talk to me about it, but I have not.”
| null |
https://www.newsweek.com/afghanistan-peace-negotiation-taliban-donald-trump-withdrawal-kabul-1307376?utm_source=Public&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution
|
2019-01-28 14:02:52+00:00
| 1,548,702,172 | 1,567,550,485 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
363,282 |
newyorker--2019-01-29--Donald Trumps Chance to Bring Peace to Afghanistan and End Americas Longest War
| 2019-01-29T00:00:00 |
newyorker
|
Donald Trump’s Chance to Bring Peace to Afghanistan and End America’s Longest War
|
Afghanistan, in the foreign imagination, has never been associated with certainty. For centuries, visitors and invaders alike have applied conflicting stereotypes to the country—that Afghans are simultaneously courageous and treacherous, honorable and corrupt, courteous and warlike. This week, Afghans themselves face an uncertainty of their own: Donald Trump’s intentions. On Monday, Trump’s Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, announced that, after six days of negotiations, he had achieved a “framework” for a peace deal with the Taliban—something that has eluded American diplomats for more than a decade. The Taliban pledged not to allow any organization to carry out an international terrorist attack from the territory of Afghanistan, in exchange for a full withdrawal of foreign troops from the country. The news sparked surprise—and applause—from American diplomats who have tried and failed to negotiate with the Taliban in the past. “I think this is the beginning of a credible process for the first time in ten years,” Dan Feldman, who served as the Obama Administration’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told me. The moment represents an opportunity for Trump to produce a breakthrough foreign-policy achievement that would both appeal to his base and achieve something that he relishes: outdoing Barack Obama and George W. Bush. It would also end a conflict that has become an abattoir for poorly paid and equipped Afghan soldiers and police. Last week, the Afghan President, Ashraf Ghani, revealed that forty-five thousand of them have died since 2014, when Afghan forces took over the responsibility for securing the country from American and NATO forces. During the same period, Ghani said, seventy-two foreign soldiers have died. On average, five hundred Afghan security forces have died for every American. “It shows you who is doing the fighting,” Ghani said. A variety of factors—some serendipitous, some the result of Trump’s repeated calls for an American withdrawal from the conflict—have come together to create this opportunity. “The next several months are critical,” Rick Olson, a retired American diplomat who negotiated with the Taliban during the Obama Administration, told me. The surest way for the President to capitalize on the opportunity, diplomats say, is for him to embrace what is, for him, an uncharacteristic approach: restraint. Trump deserves credit for his willingness to take a risk. He has, apparently, dismissed the concerns of the Bush and Obama Administrations that abandoning Afghanistan could prompt the country to again become a base for terrorist attacks on the United States. But, for peace talks to proceed successfully, he should resist tweeting a demand for an immediate agreement or publicly threatening the unilateral withdrawal of American troops. Dan Feldman argues that this is a moment for Trump to act as a conventional leader. “A traditional, strategic, disciplined President could help quite a bit, by empowering his Special Representative in negotiations, by assuring the Afghan government that we won’t precipitously withdraw and leave a security vacuum . . . and by engaging allies and partners in the region on how to adequately resource and guarantee any settlement,” he said. Feldman and Olson both said that a genuine chance for peace exists. Olson said that a central dynamic that has changed is the posture of the U.S. military. American generals are no longer arguing that they need more time to create military pressure on the Taliban. “The D.O.D. wants out,” Olson told me. “This is something they were never really willing to do under Obama.” He added that the Defense Department has shifted its focus to the strategic threats posed by China, Russia, and others. “The world has moved on,” he said. “D.O.D. is now thinking about great-power competition.” For now, leaders across the region are also embracing the talks. After years of thwarting American efforts, Pakistan’s military, at the request of the United States, recently released Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a founder of the Taliban, and allowed him to lead the peace talks with American diplomats in Qatar. Iran, Russia, and China, meanwhile, see a chance to achieve a long-running goal: getting American forces out of their back yard. And the Taliban, who are militarily strong but unpopular in Afghanistan’s cities, may sense an opportunity as well. Former diplomats warn that confusing and contradictory messaging from Trump will derail the talks. Last month, the President tweeted, without having informed America’s allies, that he was withdrawing all U.S. forces from Syria. Days later, news leaked that the White House had ordered the Pentagon to withdraw half of the fourteen thousand troops currently serving in Afghanistan. But the Syria announcement—which provoked the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis—was later walked back. And this week Pentagon officials said that they have received no orders to withdraw the seven thousand troops from Afghanistan. Trump, in publicly telegraphing his desire to pull out all American troops, Feldman told me, weakens the hands of American negotiators. The Taliban may, in fact, conclude that they could simply wait for U.S. forces to withdraw and then take control of the country. “The Taliban recognize that the U.S. commitment is waning,” Feldman said. “By announcing that precipitously, you take off the table our best leverage.” Young people, women, and city-dwellers in Afghanistan fear that Trump will hastily abandon them and the country’s vast, post-2001 improvements in education, health care, and basic human rights. At a Senate hearing on Tuesday, senior American intelligence officials expressed concern about Afghanistan and hope for the talks. Dan Coats, the director of National Intelligence, predicted that, if the talks fail, the county’s bloody stalemate will simply drag on. “The current effort to achieve an agreement with the Taliban could play a key role in shaping the direction of the country,” he said. Gina Haspel, the director of the C.I.A., added that, even if a peace deal is reached, the United States will still need to closely monitor whether terrorist organizations begin to regroup. “All of us sitting at this table would agree that it’s very important that we maintain pressure,” she said. “A very robust monitoring regime would be needed.” Feldman emphasized that an assurance from Trump that the U.S. will not “cut and run,” as well as a display of consistency and patience, would aid the talks. “This President has done the opposite of all those things,” he told me. If Trump is unwilling to adopt a new approach it’s best that he stay silent and leave the diplomacy to Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. “Then I hope he says nothing at all,” Feldman said, “and let Zal be Zal, and continue his efforts.”
|
David Rohde
|
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trumps-chance-to-bring-peace-to-afghanistan-and-end-americas-longest-war
|
2019-01-29 22:00:41+00:00
| 1,548,817,241 | 1,567,550,453 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
383,824 |
npr--2019-02-09--US Envoy For Peace In Afghanistan Sees Long Road Ahead For Final Deal
| 2019-02-09T00:00:00 |
npr
|
U.S. Envoy For Peace In Afghanistan Sees 'Long Road' Ahead For Final Deal
|
U.S. Envoy For Peace In Afghanistan Sees 'Long Road' Ahead For Final Deal The chief U.S. negotiator for peace in Afghanistan said Friday that after several months of talks, he has reached agreement with the Taliban on some key issues, but stressed that a substantive peace deal is far from finished and hinges on dialogue between the militant group and that country's government. Speaking at the United State Institute of Peace, a Washington think tank, Zalmay Khalilzad cautioned that "a long agenda of must be addressed," but reiterated that, in principal, a "framework" agreement had been reached. "What we've achieved so far is significant. But these are small, two or three small steps in a long journey," Khalilzad said in a hoarse voice, the result of 42 hours of talks with the Taliban. Last month, Khalilzad revealed the Taliban has consented to guarantee that it will not allow terrorist groups to use Afghanistan as a platform to stage attacks against the U.S. or its allies, as al-Qaida did in 2001. In return, the U.S. has agreed to the possibility of troop withdrawal as part of a package deal. There are about 15,000 American troops in Afghanistan. Details of what mechanisms will be implemented to ensure that the Taliban complies with its side of the bargain still need to be fleshed out, Khalilzad said. He also clarified that the Taliban's negotiators agreed to the condition, but not its leadership. "We will not just rely on people's words," he said, noting that Taliban leaders have said "they do not want to go back to the way things were." Among several points of contention, however, is the Taliban's unwillingness to negotiate directly with the government of Afghanistan, which they argue is propped up by the U.S. government. But Khalilzad, a former U.S. ambassador to Kabul, suggested that the war-weary nation is prime for peace. "All sides say they have learned lessons from the past," he said. Additionally, he said Taliban officials are willing to take part in a "multiparty arrangement." It is unclear which stakeholders that may include. He is encouraging intra-Afghan talks as soon as possible to shape the future of the country. "We are looking to be helpful and offer what we can, but it's for the Afghans to decide. It's for the Afghans to have the conversations. It's for the Afghans to negotiate with each other. It's for the Afghans to accept each other," Khalilzad said. "We cannot be a substitute for decisions that they must take," he added. Another obstacle on the "very long road" to peace, is the Taliban's refusal to enact a cease-fire. Their position is that continued fighting presents the only path to gain concessions from the government, whereas a permanent cease-fire eliminates any incentive for the government to concede to their demands. Still, Khalilzad remained optimistic about hammering out a mutually beneficial deal going so far as to suggest that a final peace agreement could be secured by July – before the nation's presidential election. Vikram Singh, a senior adviser at the Institute of Peace, said the Afghan government appears to have shifted its tone over the last week, following peace talks in Moscow. "I think the government realizes it risks making itself irrelevant if they're not much more proactive," Singh told NPR. On the heels of negotiations with the U.S. in Doha, Qatar, from Jan. 21 through Jan. 26, Taliban leaders met with a Russian delegation for two days in Moscow earlier this week. The Afghan government was excluded from both. "That was a bad move and they're starting to see that things can move without them," Singh said. "Rather than seeming like they're in control, they've been pretty negative but this week they took a soft tone on the [Taliban] meeting in Moscow." Singh added that it's significant that in his speech on Friday Khalilzad rejected the notion that the U.S. is handing control of the country over to the Taliban, who ruled from 1996 to 2001. However, the envoy emphasized that the Taliban will be among several stakeholders who will be participate in the power-sharing of a new government. With regard to how the Islamist group's influence will affect women in Afghanistan, Khalilzad said the Taliban "have a different view on this issue now." "They say they made in a mistake in how they dealt with women the last time," he said. NPR's Scott Simon, who spent time in Afghanistan shortly after U.S. forces toppled the Taliban, reported, "Under the Taliban, women couldn't leave their homes without a male relative. Women couldn't go to school or work. They couldn't speak in public. They couldn't be treated by a doctor. They could be beaten for reading a book." The Afghanistan of today "is a different world than 18, 19 years ago. It's a different country and it will take time for Taliban, perhaps to appreciate that but the message that they have given me is that they understand that they cannot go back," Khalilzad said. Now, girls have greater access to education and women can work, they hold prominent positions in the media and government, and they have become an important part of the workforce. The Taliban has issued statements about respecting human rights but women throughout the country are concerned that there will not be adequate checks to protect their relatively recently restored freedoms, NPR's Tom Bowman reported. During the State of the Union address last week, President Trump touched on the ongoing war, which has been mired in a stalemate and is about to enter into its 18th year. "Great nations do not fight endless wars," Trump said, just a month after announcing, to the surprise of the Afghan government, that he is ordering the withdrawal of 7,000 troops from the country. On Friday, Khalilzad said the order to withdraw troops will depend on conditions on the ground and progress in the talks. That stands in contrast to information gathered by Bowman who said, "People I talk with believe President Trump could order out maybe thousands of U.S. troops who are training Afghans and shift that to coalition partners." The remaining U.S. troops – between 7,000 to 8,000 — would shift their focus to counterterrorism efforts, according to Bowman.
|
Vanessa Romo
|
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/08/692910396/u-s-envoy-for-peace-in-afghanistan-sees-long-road-ahead-for-final-deal?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news
|
2019-02-09 02:47:19+00:00
| 1,549,698,439 | 1,567,549,123 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
426,083 |
pravadareport--2019-07-26--America and Pakistan in Search of Peace and Conflict Resolution
| 2019-07-26T00:00:00 |
pravadareport
|
America and Pakistan in Search of Peace and Conflict Resolution
|
President Trump and young looking Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan met this week at the White House. Trump is master to transform rhetoric into reality as he did to North Korean leader. Both were trying to overcome the historic indifference and prejudice to bridge the ever widening gaps between the reality and perceptions of relationship. If nation's relationships are based on the simplicity of truth, wisdom, national interest and integrity, one could foresee political compromises as a virtue to foster friendship. Trump's body language signaled some positive overtures as America looks for foes and friends to end its occupation of Afghanistan. Pakistan is central to this strategy to facilitate a peaceful and face-saving outcome for America militarism in Afghanistan. Truth is unchanging as it was in 2001 that George W. Bush - an emotionally disturbed and intellectually imbalanced president embarked on military intervention to invade Afghanistan to strengthen his standing before the American masses after the 9/11 events. Truth is the same today as it was almost two decade earlier that America and its NATO allies displaced and killed millions for no other reason except a preposterous and distorted version of warmongering against the poor and helpless people of Afghanistan who had nothing to do with the 9/11 tragedies. When false assumptions go unchallenged, it breeds more reactionary forces to entrench in violence and destruction. Bertrand Russell and Alfred Einstein Manifest (1955) called "a war with H bomb might possibly put an end to the human race." In 2017, America tested the Mother of Bombs in Afghanistan as if it was an American state. This is how America and NATO destroyed the ancient and peaceful culture of Afghanistan. All wars are dreadful and end up in calamities with ripple effects for centuries to come. It is an evidence of tragic human abnormality that American, Afghan and Pakistani could not unfold humanitarian approaches to resolve the enlarged conflict in Afghanistan. Now, Trump and Imran Khan have come to understand its reality and wisdom of reciprocal forbearance that could usher a just a viable settlement in Afghanistan. But no one should underestimate the prevalent optimistic skepticism linking Pakistan and Afghanistan to a new American policy and practice for change in southwest Asia. If America had the political, moral and intellectual capacity to honor its commitments, it could resolve the Afghan problems via a peaceful agreement with the people of Afghanistan and ensure a legitimate elected system of governance for Afghanistan. It is not the question whether Talaban or President Ashraf Ghani's party should govern Afghanistan, but the people of Afghanistan must have a participatory and final say in making the peace deal. Rights of the people and political fairness must be the guiding principles to conclude a peace pact between the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Military interventions never deliver peace and social harmony but destroy all substance that should support the societal progress and future-making. Imran Khan should be careful to assess Pakistan's own weaknesses and strength and learn from the past as to what mistakes were made in military collaboration with the US scheme of things in the region. The USAID gimmick or the loans from the IMF are not the viable strategies for national progress and development. Pakistan must strengthen its domestic socio-economic and political productivity, advancements and integration. Its progress is a key to international cohesion and services to the neglected masses. Khan does not appear to have expertise in political change, economic productivity and nation-building. Political corruption is a cancer in the society. He should encourage and engage new generation of educated and intelligent and honest people to participate for building new public institutions, new systems of participatory governance and political accountability in all domains of affairs. Imran Khan will be wise to enlarge his circle of governance by enlisting educated and proactive visionary men of ideas and strategic experts to deliver services to the people and ensure a progressive Pakistan. Trump to Mediate Kashmir between India and Pakistan - Will He? As a friendly overture to softening relationship with Pakistan, Trump offered to mediate the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Immediately, Indian PM' spokesperson denied Trump's assertion of PM Modi ever asking him to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan. In politics, argument and rebuttals could be pondered with varied logical scales. There is a contrast between what India claims to be and what Pakistan stands for and what the people of Kashmir valley aspire for. If we imply canons of rationality, it could clarify the core of fault lines between tense relationships of India and Pakistan. If India and Pakistan are sincere to find a cure to the overwhelming cruelty, military tyranny and violations of the basic rights of the people of Kashmir, the global community will view them as leaders of peaceful future-making For a change, Trump has sensed the rationality of restoring normal ties between the two nuclear rivals. It could help him to gain some numbers in political popularity as he did on North Korea - an unthinkable probability making it thinkable reality for normalization of mutual relationship. Both India and Pakistan and given their competing claims cannot deny the fact that Kashmir is the focal issue to a normal future for the masses in both countries. War is madness if there are people of reason to think about the societal future and wellbeing of the people. Kashmir was never part of India even under the British Raj. In 1947 and 1949 at the UN Security Council Resolutions, the people of Kashmir were promised a referendum (plebiscite) to decide about their future whether to join India or Pakistan. It is not the domestic territory of India or Pakistan to undo the truth about Kashmir. There is no sense to shed human blood on a precarious experiment whether India administers Kashmir or Pakistanis do. The conflict must be resolved by addressing the humanitarian problems and sufferings of the people of Kashmir. If Trump along with Russia and China could persuade both India and Pakistan to resolve the problem, it could open-up new threshold of peace and harmony in Southwest Asia. In a changing world of global thinking and friendly relationships with others, American foreign policy experts should think critically how best they could communicate to a friend in Southwest Asia and enlist urgently needed moral and practical support to pave the ways for a peaceful settlement of the Afghanistan crisis. America is a military power but its legend of invincibility has been torn apart by small groups of fighters in Afghanistan. Much of this land of ancient tribal herdsmen is in ruins, its economy, political and civic infrastructures and productivity devastated by the insanity of war and civilian lives float between obsessed insecurity, daily bombings and extended graveyards. America cannot undo the history of its own ruthless engagement and strategic failure. This consequence is of its own failed strategy or no strategy at all, and not of the role of Pakistan or others. If American rational impulses are intact, its policy should focus on a multilateral approach including Pakistan, Iran, India, China and Russia to pool intellectual resources and work out negotiated settlements in Afghanistan and Kashmir. America needs to be rational and see the mirror of its prolonged involvement in a war that has consumed more than 4,000 lives of US soldiers and almost 15,000 wounded veterans. This is no excuse to reinforce aggression against the people of Afghanistan. America needs a safe exit from the prolonged self-engineered crisis. Russia, China, India and Pakistan Could Help America to Negotiate Peace in Asia While individualism is a political trait, authoritarian absolutism is a political sickness and contrary to the principles of liberty and justice. America enjoins a moral and intellectual history of the making of the nation. "These are the times that try men's soul", wrote Thomas Paine in the Common Sense (1776), the political vision and reference for the independence of America from Britain as a nation. If global common sense is the hub of rational thoughts, America under Trump has open lines of communication with President Putin and Chinese President Xi Ping. It is rational to assume that Pakistan under PM Imran Khan could facilitate an international gathering inviting Russia, China, India and America to open a dialogue for political change and conflict resolution. This will be a magnanimous forbearance and proactive vision to dispel the notion of war and intransigence and to reshape a turbulent past, be it in Afghanistan or Kashmir and strengthen a legitimate purpose of peace, friendship and sustainable relationships without tyranny of wars and violations of human rights and dignity. Ferocity of wars and violations of human rights cannot be the intelligent hallmarks of a progressive society striving to harmonize the humanity and make sustainable peace as a reality for the future generations. Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in global security, peace and conflict resolution and international affairs with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including the latest: Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution: Approaches to Understand the Current Issues and Future-Making. Lambert Academic Publishing, Germany, October 2017.
| null |
http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/142561-america_pakistan/
|
2019-07-26 19:54:00+00:00
| 1,564,185,240 | 1,567,535,704 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
467,746 |
rferl--2019-01-28--NYT US Taliban Agree In Principle To Peace Framework Envoy Says
| 2019-01-28T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
NYT: U.S., Taliban Agree In Principle To Peace 'Framework,' Envoy Says
|
U.S. and Taliban officials have agreed in principle to the "framework" of a peace deal, The New York Times quotes U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad as saying after five days of talks between the militant group and the United States in Qatar. Both sides have said "progress" had been made in the talks aimed at ending the 17-year conflict in Afghanistan. “We have a draft of the framework that has to be fleshed out before it becomes an agreement,” The New York Times quoted Khalilzad as saying on January 28 in an interview in Kabul. In the framework, the militants agree to prevent Afghan territory from being used by groups such as Al-Qaeda to stage terrorist attacks. That could lead to a full pullout of U.S. combat troops, but only in return for the Taliban entering talks with the Afghan government and agreeing to a lasting cease-fire. The Taliban “committed, to our satisfaction, to do what is necessary that would prevent Afghanistan from ever becoming a platform for international terrorist groups or individuals,” Khalilzad was quoted as saying. “We felt enough confidence that we said we need to get this fleshed out, and details need to be worked out,” he added, according to The New York Times. The Western-backed government in Kabul has struggled to fend off a resurgent Taliban and other militant groups. The Taliban has so far refused to hold direct negotiations with Afghan government officials, whom they dismiss as "puppets." The militants have said they will only begin talks with the government once a firm date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops has been agreed. In a televised address on January 28, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani called on the Taliban to enter “serious” negotiations with the government in Kabul and "accept Afghans' demand for peace.” "Either they join the great nation of Afghanistan with a united voice, or be the tool of foreign objectives," he told the militant group. Ghani spoke after Khalilzad briefed him and other Afghan officials in Kabul on the six-day talks he held with Taliban representatives in the Qatari capital, Doha, last week. The president's office quoted Khalilzad as saying he had held talks about the withdrawal of foreign troops and a possible cease-fire, but nothing was agreed upon. "The U.S. insisted in their talks with the Taliban that the only solution for lasting peace in Afghanistan is intra-Afghan talks," Khalilzad said, according to a statement. "My role is to facilitate" such talks between the insurgents and Kabul, Khalilzad was quoted as saying. The U.S. envoy said on January 26 that the United States and the Taliban had made "significant progress," adding that the Doha talks were "more productive than they have been in the past." He also emphasized that the sides “have a number of issues left to work out,” and that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said that while there was "progress" at the meetings, reports of an agreement on a cease-fire were "not true." Mujahid also said in a statement that talks about "unresolved matters" will continue. Until the withdrawal of international troops was hammered out, "progress in other issues is impossible," he insisted. Another round of peace talks between the Taliban and the United States was tentatively set for February 25, the Reuters news agency quoted a Qatari Foreign Ministry official as saying on January 28.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-envoy-briefs-afghan-president-on-peace-talks-with-taliban/29735424.html
|
2019-01-28 09:14:27+00:00
| 1,548,684,867 | 1,567,550,580 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
467,770 |
rferl--2019-01-29--NATO US Officials Encouraged By Afghan Peace Talks After Draft Framework Agreed
| 2019-01-29T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
NATO, U.S. Officials Encouraged By Afghan Peace Talks After 'Draft Framework' Agreed
|
NATO’s chief and the acting head of the Pentagon said they were encouraged by the progress of peace talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan, after the U.S. special envoy for the conflict-wracked country announced that American and Taliban negotiators had agreed on a draft "framework" for a peace deal seeking to put an end to the 17-year war there. During a visit to Washington on January 28, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg vowed that the Taliban "will not win on the battlefield, so they have to sit down at the negotiating table." "Therefore we are encouraged by what we see now, the progress... and talks with Taliban," he added. Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan echoed that, saying "I'd say really the takeaway right now: it's encouraging." Stoltenberg and Shanahan made the comments as Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation, said that his five days of talks with Taliban negotiators in Qatar last week were "much better than previous meetings." Khalilzad told Afghan reporters in Kabul that the sides "made progress on vital issues in our discussions and agreed to agreements in principle on a couple of very important issues.” "There is a lot more work to be done before we can say we have succeeded in our efforts but I believe for the first time I can say that we have made significant progress," he also said. The Taliban has also said that "progress" had been made in the talks. In an interview with The New York Times published earlier in the day, Khalilzad offered more details on the state of the negotiations with the militant group, saying the sides had agreed in principle to the "framework" of a deal. Under the framework, the militants would agree to prevent Afghan territory from being used by groups such as Al-Qaeda to stage terrorist attacks, Khalilzad said. That could then lead to a full pullout of U.S. combat troops, but only in return for the Taliban’s entering talks with the Afghan government and agreeing to a lasting cease-fire. "We have a draft of the framework that has to be fleshed out before it becomes an agreement," Khalilzad told the newspaper in Kabul. Meanwhile, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani called on the Taliban to enter "serious" negotiations with the Kabul government and "accept Afghans' demand for peace." "Either they join the great nation of Afghanistan with a united voice, or be the tool of foreign objectives," he said in a televised address. Backed by Western nations, Ghani’s government has struggled to fend off a resurgent Taliban and other militant groups. The Taliban has so far refused to hold direct negotiations with Afghan government officials, whom they dismiss as U.S. "puppets." The militants have said they will only begin talks with the government once a firm date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops has been agreed. U.S. officials have said President Donald Trump wants to withdraw about half of the 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Stoltenberg said it was too early to speculate about the number of NATO troops that would remain. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said on January 26 that there was "progress" in the peace talks, but he denied earlier reports of an agreement on a cease-fire. Until the withdrawal of international troops was hammered out, "progress on other issues is impossible," he said. Another round of talks between the Taliban and the United States was tentatively set for February 25, the Reuters news agency reported.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-us-afghan-peace-talks-taliban/29737284.html
|
2019-01-29 05:15:10+00:00
| 1,548,756,910 | 1,567,550,429 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
467,794 |
rferl--2019-01-30--Trump Says Afghanistan Peace Talks Proceeding Well
| 2019-01-30T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
Trump Says Afghanistan Peace Talks 'Proceeding Well'
|
President Donald Trump has expressed cautious satisfaction over the progress of peace talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan, following six days of talks between the U.S. special envoy for the conflict-wracked country and Taliban negotiators last week. "Negotiating are proceeding well in Afghanistan after 18 years of fighting," Trump tweeted on January 30. "Fighting continues but the people of Afghanistan want peace in this never ending war. We will soon see if talks will be successful?" he wrote in a separate tweet. Trump's comments come after both the Taliban and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation, said that "progress" had been made in talks in Qatar. In an interview with The New York Times published on January 28, Khalilzad said that the sides had agreed in principle to the "framework" of a peace deal to end the Afghan war. He said that the draft "framework" calls for the Taliban to prevent international terrorist groups from basing themselves in Afghanistan. That could lead to a full pullout of U.S. forces from the country, but only in return for the Taliban entering talks with the Afghan government and agreeing to a lasting cease-fire. Speaking to reporters in Kabul later in the day, the U.S. envoy said, "There is a lot more work to be done before we can say we have succeeded in our efforts, but I believe for the first time I can say that we have made significant progress." Afghan President Ashraf Ghani told a conference in Kabul on January 30 that the "key to peace was in Afghanistan," while the "keys to war are in Islamabad, Quetta, [and] Rawalpindi" -- meaning Pakistan. Afghan and U.S. officials have long accused Pakistan of providing a safe haven for terrorists operating in Afghanistan, a charge Islamabad fiercely denies. In November, Ghani announced that his government had formed a 12-strong negotiating team to seek a peace agreement with the Taliban, as he laid out what he called a "road map" for the talks. The Western-backed government in Kabul has struggled to fend off a resurgent Taliban and other militant groups since the withdrawal of most NATO troops in 2014. The Taliban has so far refused to hold direct negotiations with Afghan government officials, whom they dismiss as U.S. "puppets." The militants have said they will only begin talks with the government once a firm date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops has been agreed. However, a spokesman said on January 30 that the Taliban was not seeking a "monopoly on power" in a future administration. "After the end of the occupation, Afghans should forget their past and tolerate one another and start life like brothers. After the withdrawal, we are not seeking a monopoly on power," Suhail Shaheen, a Taliban spokesman based in Qatar, told the Associated Press in an audio message.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/trump-says-afghanistan-peace-talks-proceeding-well-/29741935.html
|
2019-01-30 13:26:55+00:00
| 1,548,872,815 | 1,567,550,282 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
467,974 |
rferl--2019-02-08--US Envoy Long Way To Go Before Peace Deal With Afghan Taliban
| 2019-02-08T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
U.S. Envoy: 'Long Way To Go' Before Peace Deal With Afghan Taliban
|
U.S. peace envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad says that although talks with the Taliban have produced the framework for a peace deal there is still a "long way to go" before a final agreement. Speaking at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington on February 8, Khalilzad said he was "hopeful" a peace deal could be finalized before Afghanistan’s presidential elections in July, but warned that there remained "a lot of work" to do. "We are at the early stages of a protracted process," said Khalilzad, who has met with Taliban negotiators for a series of talks in the Middle East in recent months. Khalilzad held six days of talks with Taliban negotiators in the Qatari capital, Doha, last month, culminating in the basic framework of a possible peace agreement. The agreement calls for the Taliban to prevent international terrorist groups from basing themselves in Afghanistan and for the United States to withdraw its forces from the country. The Taliban has yet to make concessions on two key U.S. demands -- implementing a cease-fire and agreeing to negotiate directly with Afghan government representatives as part of an Afghan-led, intra-Afghan peace process. The Afghan government has been absent from the U.S.-Taliban talks, prompting anger and frustration in Kabul. The Taliban considers the Kabul government a Western puppet and has so far refused to directly negotiate with it. But Khalilzad said the next phase of the peace process will have to be Afghan-led, saying Washington role’s will "decrease" as Afghans from the warring sides hammer out a possible deal through an "inter-Afghan dialogue." Khalilzad said there were indications that the Taliban could sit down with government representatives in a "multiparty format." The former U.S. ambassador said there was "positive change" in Pakistan, which Washington and Kabul have long accused of sheltering the Taliban. Khalilzad said Islamabad had helped facilitate recent talks between the militants and the United States, although he said Pakistan should "do more." Russia hosted a second peace conference in Moscow from February 5-6, attracting representatives of neighboring countries, powerful Afghan power brokers, and Taliban officials. U.S. officials have accused Russia of attempting to muddle the U.S.-backed peace process. Khalilzad said the Russia-backed talks were "positive" as long as they helped facilitate intra-Afghan talks, not if they "polarize Afghans further." "I'm not seeking to monopolize" the Afghan peace process, Khalilzad said, adding that regional countries should play a role in resolving the 17-year conflict.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-khalilzad-u-s-envoy-says-long-way-to-go-before-peace-deal-with-taliban/29759907.html
|
2019-02-08 22:17:45+00:00
| 1,549,682,265 | 1,567,549,231 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
468,021 |
rferl--2019-02-11--US Acting Defense Chief Backs Kabul Role In Peace Talks
| 2019-02-11T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
U.S. Acting Defense Chief Backs Kabul Role In Peace Talks
|
U.S. Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan has arrived in Afghanistan on an unannounced visit to meet with military commanders and Afghan officials amid a heightened push by Washington for a peace deal with the Taliban. Shanahan, who arrived early on February 11, told reporters traveling with him that he will stress in talks with Afghan leaders that they will be the ones to ultimately decide their future, including the final nature of any potential peace with the Taliban. "It is important that the Afghan government is involved in discussions regarding Afghanistan," Shanahan said. "The Afghans have to decide what Afghanistan looks like in the future. It's not about the U.S. It is about Afghanistan," he added. Shanahan, who took over the job after Jim Mattis quit in December over policy differences with U.S. President Donald Trump, said he could not make any guarantees because U.S. peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad was leading the talks. "The U.S. military has strong security interests in the region. [The] presence will evolve out of those discussions," Shanahan said. He said the aim of his trip was to get an understanding of the situation on the ground from commanders and then brief Trump on his findings. Shanahan also said he had no instructions from the White House to reduce the troop level in Afghanistan from the current 14,000. Reports have circulated that U.S. President Donald Trump is looking to cut about half of the force as part of efforts to reduce U.S. military involvement in the region. Trump has already said he is pulling out all 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria, where they have been aiding a Syrian Arab and Kurdish alliance fighting against the Islamic State and other insurgent groups. Shanahan's trip comes as the Afghanistan envoy Khalilzad is setting off on a visit to several key countries as part of efforts to push a U.S. peace initiative for the war-torn country. The State Department said Khalilzad would travel on February 10-28 to Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Qatar, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Khalilzad recently returned from talks with the Taliban in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar. It was not immediately clear if Shanahan and Khalilzad would be conducting joint discussions during their trips. Shanahan said in late January that he saw "some very encouraging possibilities" in Khalilzad's negotiations with the Taliban. "But we need to give them time and space," he said. Shanahan, 56, has said his priorities would include the impending U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria and countering China's military might. Shanahan is expected to attend a meeting of NATO defense chiefs in Brussels on February 13-14 and then the Munich Security Conference in Germany on February 15-17.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/us-defense-chief-shanahan-arrives-in-afghanistan/29762885.html
|
2019-02-11 04:14:38+00:00
| 1,549,876,478 | 1,567,548,944 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
468,206 |
rferl--2019-02-19--US Envoy Calls On Afghanistan To Unite As Peace Talks Intensify
| 2019-02-19T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
U.S. Envoy Calls On Afghanistan To Unite As Peace Talks Intensify
|
U.S. peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has called on Afghans to put aside their differences and unite as attempts to end Afghanistan’s 17-year war gain momentum. Khalilzad has held a series of direct talks with Taliban negotiators in the Middle East in recent months, although those discussions have not included the Western-backed Kabul government. Key Afghan power brokers who oppose President Ashraf Ghani held talks with Taliban negotiators in Moscow on February 5-6. Opposition politicians have criticized the negotiating team announced by Ghani that is headed by his chief of staff for not being inclusive. Khalilzad called on the Afghan government to form a "strong, national" negotiating team. "We need a team where government’s leadership is respected," Khalilzad told Afghanistan's Tolo News on February 18. "At the same time, the participation of other political elements is also a must." Khalilzad, a former U.S. ambassador, was in the Afghan capital, Kabul, where he held talks with Ghani and senior political figures. He said peace would only be achieved in Afghanistan if there was "unity, consensus, and agreement between Afghans, inside and outside the government." Kabul has been angered and frustrated that it has been left out of the talks. Ghani said last week he will convene a consultative Loya Jirga, a traditional assembly of tribal, ethnic, and religious leaders, to reach a national consensus on peace talks with the Taliban. Khalilzad is scheduled to meet Taliban negotiators for talks in Qatar on February 25. During the previous round of talks in Doha, the Qatari capital, U.S. and Taliban negotiators reached the basic framework of a possible peace deal. The agreement calls for the Taliban to prevent international terrorist groups from basing themselves in Afghanistan and for the United States to withdraw its forces from the country. “There are difficulties, but we have agreed with the Taliban to meet again on February 25," he said. "We agreed in principle to talk in details and with more authenticity about two topics to find whether there is the possibility to make more progress on the issue of terrorism and the issue of forces." The Taliban has yet to make concessions on two key U.S. demands -- implementing a cease-fire and agreeing to negotiate directly with Afghan government representatives as part of an Afghan-led, intra-Afghan peace process. "I want a broad-based cease-fire to be announced as soon as possible," Khalilzad said. "Secondly, there is a need for discussions and consultations among Afghans, including the [Afghan] government, to start soon." The Taliban has so far refused to hold talks with Kabul, calling it illegitimate. The Taliban announced that it would hold talks with U.S. and Pakistani officials in Islamabad on February 18, but the talks were canceled after Kabul's protests.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/29777923.html
|
2019-02-19 03:21:02+00:00
| 1,550,564,462 | 1,567,548,058 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
468,292 |
rferl--2019-02-24--Taliban Political Chief Baradar To Attend Afghan Peace Talks In Qatar
| 2019-02-24T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
Taliban Political Chief Baradar To Attend Afghan Peace Talks In Qatar
|
A new round of peace talks between Taliban and U.S. negotiators is to begin in Doha this week and will include the militant group’s co-founder Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, according to Taliban and diplomatic sources in Qatar. Reports said the talks were set to begin in the Qatari capital on February 25, and were expected to center around a cease-fire to end Afghanistan's 17-year conflict and the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country. The U.S. negotiating team will be led by the United States Special Representative for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad. Afghan Taliban leaders had said that their new political chief, Baradar, would not attend the negotiations because he had had difficulties obtaining travel documents. The Taliban also said there were differences among the Taliban leadership over the precise role that Baradar should have in the talks. Baradar was released from a Pakistani jail in October. His appointment was widely seen as marking a new push by the Taliban to achieve political and diplomatic legitimacy. The Taliban, which now reportedly controls nearly half of Afghanistan, has held a series of direct talks with Khalilzad in recent months. However, the group has so far refused to hold direct negotiations with the Afghan government, calling it a Western puppet. During their previous round of talks in Doha, U.S. and Taliban negotiators reached the basic framework of a possible peace deal. The agreement calls for the Taliban to prevent international terrorist groups from basing themselves in Afghanistan and for the United States to withdraw its forces from the country. U.S. troops have been in Afghanistan since an October 2001 invasion that brought down the Taliban government after it refused to hand over Al-Qaeda terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, blamed for launching the September 11 attacks in the United States.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/taliban-political-chief-baradar-to-attend-afghan-peace-talks-in-qatar/29788128.html
|
2019-02-24 19:35:47+00:00
| 1,551,054,947 | 1,567,547,514 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
468,723 |
rferl--2019-04-01--US Special Envoy Arrives In Kabul Ahead Of New Round Of Peace Talks
| 2019-04-01T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
U.S. Special Envoy Arrives In Kabul Ahead Of New Round Of Peace Talks
|
The U.S. envoy seeking a peace deal with the Taliban to end nearly 18 years of war in Afghanistan has returned to Kabul ahead of a new round of talks. Fereydoun Khuzon, deputy spokesman for the Afghan presidential administration, told RFE/RL on April 1 that he expects the visit of U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad to pave the way for the start of direct talks between the government and the Taliban. Khalilzad, the chief negotiator with the Taliban, has held several rounds of peace talks with the militant group in Qatar. But the Western-backed government in Kabul has complained it is being left out of the negotiations, with the Taliban refusing to negotiate with what they consider "a U.S. puppet." Khalilzad appears to have hit the ground trying to smooth those complaints and facilitate a peace process that brings all Afghan parties together in inclusive intra-Afghan negotiations. "We discussed the urgency of making progress on intra-Afghan dialogue," Khalilzad tweeted on April 1 after meeting with government representatives with responsibility for the Afghan peace process. He later wrote that he had "productive" talks with Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah and Foreign Minister Salah Rabbani, adding: "We discussed how the international community can best support them in an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned" peace process. The growing rift between Kabul and Washington over the talks with the Taliban erupted in public view on March 14, when Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's national-security adviser harshly criticized Khalilzad, a veteran, Afghan-born U.S. diplomat. During a visit to Washington, Hamdullah Mohib accused the U.S. envoy of "delegitimizing" the government by excluding it from the negotiations, acting like a "viceroy," and harboring personal ambitions in Afghanistan. Khalilzad's trip also comes amid heightened tensions between Kabul and Islamabad over recent statements made by Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan that suggested that Afghanistan should set up an interim government. Khan told Pakistani journalists on March 25 that such a move would help the talks between U.S. and Taliban negotiators, since the militant group refuses to speak to the current government. Afghanistan has recalled its Islamabad ambassador and summoned Pakistan's deputy ambassador to Kabul to discuss what a Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman called the "irresponsible" remarks by Khan. In a statement on March 27, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said that Khan's comments had been "reported out of context in the media, leading to unwarranted reaction from various quarters."
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-special-envoy-arrives-in-kabul-ahead-of-new-round-of-peace-talks/29854696.html
|
2019-04-01 12:44:02+00:00
| 1,554,137,042 | 1,567,544,507 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
468,812 |
rferl--2019-04-05--US Peace Envoy In Pakistan For Talks On Afghan Peace Process
| 2019-04-05T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
U.S. Peace Envoy In Pakistan For Talks On Afghan Peace Process
|
The U.S. envoy seeking a peace deal with the Taliban to end nearly 18 years of war in Afghanistan has arrived for talks in neighboring Pakistan. Zalmay Khalilzad met on April 5 with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who "reiterated Pakistan's commitment to the peace process," a Foreign Ministry statement said. Pakistan, which Washington and Kabul have long accused of harboring the Taliban leadership, is seen as playing a key role in securing a peace agreement. Khalilzad is also expected to hold meetings with Pakistan’s top civilian and military leaders during his visit. The veteran, Afghan-born diplomat has been shuttling back and forth to the region in a bid to garner support for a peace deal. Khalilzad has held several rounds of talks with Taliban negotiators in Qatar, saying after the latest rounds of talks in March that the sides had made "real strides." Before his Pakistan trip, Khalilzad visited Britain, Belgium, and Afghanistan. He is expected to travel to Uzbekistan and Jordan before an expected new round of talks with the Taliban in Qatar's capital, Doha, reportedly due to begin in mid-April.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/afghanistan-khalilzad-peace-envoy-pakistan-talks/29863553.html
|
2019-04-05 12:44:49+00:00
| 1,554,482,689 | 1,567,543,930 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
469,143 |
rferl--2019-05-01--Taliban New Round Of Peace Talks With US Opening In Qatar
| 2019-05-01T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
Taliban: New Round Of Peace Talks With U.S. Opening In Qatar
|
U.S. and Taliban representatives are due to meet in Qatar to resume talks aimed at ending the 17-year war in Afghanistan, the militant group says. Spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said that the sixth round of direct meetings between the Taliban and the United States since October 2018 will start in Doha on May 1. Washington has said that Zalmay Khalilzad, the head of U.S. efforts to force a peace deal with the Taliban, will visit the Qatari capital this month to meet Taliban negotiators. The group has so far refused to negotiate with the Afghan government, calling it a puppet of the West, and has insisted on the withdrawal of foreign forces before talks with Kabul can begin. During a visit to the Afghan capital on April 28, Khalilzad, who was born in Afghanistan, said that the Taliban must change its ways and agree to a cease-fire if peace is to come to the country. "If the Taliban insist on going back to the system they used to have, in my personal opinion it means the continuation of war not peace," the U.S. envoy told the private TV station Tolo News in Kabul. On April 29-30, Khalilzad visited Islamabad to discuss "developments in the Afghan peace process" with the Pakistani leadership, according to a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan. The U.S. envoy "requested and received support for the need to accelerate intra-Afghan dialogue and negotiations as well as a reduction in violence, concrete steps necessary for a comprehensive settlement," the statement said. Last week, the United States, Russia, and China said in a joint statement that they have agreed on the goal of withdrawing foreign forces from Afghanistan and to seek an "inclusive Afghan-led" peace process. The United States has about 14,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of Resolute Support, a NATO-led mission that provides training and assistance to security forces in Afghanistan as they battle Taliban fighters and other extremist groups, including the Islamic State group and Al-Qaeda. On April 29 in Kabul, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani opened a four-day Loya Jirga, or grand assembly, with more than 3,200 delegates seeking to agree on a common approach to peace talks with the Taliban. Ghani’s special envoy, Omar Daudzai, has said that the Loya Jirga bringing together politicians, tribal elders, and other prominent figures will provide the ground for "intra-Afghan talks" with the Taliban. But the gathering was overshadowed by no-shows by several high-ranking officials, including Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, Ghani's partner in a unity government.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/taliban-new-round-of-peace-talks-with-us-opening-in-qatar/29913967.html
|
2019-05-01 06:43:08+00:00
| 1,556,707,388 | 1,567,541,548 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
469,159 |
rferl--2019-05-02--Qatar Appoints First Ambassador To Afghanistan Amid Peace Push
| 2019-05-02T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
Qatar Appoints First Ambassador To Afghanistan Amid Peace Push
|
Qatar has appointed an ambassador to Afghanistan for the first time, as the Persian Gulf nation hosts peace talks aimed at ending the nearly 18-year Afghan war. Doha, the Qatari capital, hosts the Taliban's semiofficial political office and has been the location of the ongoing talks between the United States and the militant group. The ruler of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, issued a decree on April 29 appointing Saeed Mubarak al-Khayarin al-Hajri as the ambassador to Kabul. Afghanistan has an embassy in Qatar, but the Gulf nation maintains no diplomatic presence in the Afghan capital. Kabul has close ties with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Doha's rivals in the Gulf region. U.S. and Taliban negotiators began their sixth round of direct talks in Qatar’s capital on May 1. U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has narrowed the gaps on a potential peace deal under which U.S. forces would withdraw in return for guarantees that Afghanistan will not revert to a haven for international terrorists. The Taliban has refused to hold talks with the government in Kabul, calling it a Western “puppet.” An Afghan delegation, including government officials, was scheduled to meet Taliban officials in Doha on April 26. But the talks collapsed after disagreements over the composition of the delegation, which was to meet informally with Taliban leaders. The Taliban political office was opened in 2013 to facilitate peace talks between the militant group, Kabul, and Washington. But the talks were derailed after former Afghan President Hamid Karzai objected angrily to the presence of the Taliban's flag and insignia on the grounds of the building. While Kabul refused to recognize the office, members of the Taliban's political wing have maintained it and it has been provided for by the Qatari government.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/qatar-appoints-first-ambassador-to-afghanistan-amid-peace-push/29916307.html
|
2019-05-02 11:07:47+00:00
| 1,556,809,667 | 1,567,541,430 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
469,306 |
rferl--2019-05-19--Taliban German Envoys Meet In Qatar Amid Peace Push
| 2019-05-19T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
Taliban, German Envoys Meet In Qatar Amid Peace Push
|
The Taliban has met in Qatar with Germany's special representative for Afghanistan amid international efforts to end the nearly 18-year war. In a statement on May 19, the Taliban said Markus Potzel held talks with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban's deputy leader who is leading the militant group's peace efforts. U.S. and Taliban negotiators have met for several rounds of peace talks since last year, and despite progress have been unable to finalize a peace agreement. Sohail Shaheen, the spokesman for the Taliban's political office in Qatar, said in a statement on May 19 that Potzel and Baradar discussed "various aspects" of a possible peace deal, and "efforts of Germany in this regard." Potzel, the ambassador to Afghanistan from 2014 to 2016, also met Baradar for talks on May 1. The latest talks between U.S. and Taliban representatives ended on May 9, with U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad saying that "steady but slow progress" was made. U.S. and Taliban negotiators have been trying to find agreement on four interconnected issues, including the Taliban breaking off ties with groups designated as terrorist by Washington, the timetable of a U.S. military withdrawal, a cease-fire in Afghanistan, and an intra-Afghan dialogue that would include the Taliban and government representatives. The Taliban has refused to negotiate with the Western-backed Kabul government, viewing it as illegitimate.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/taliban-german-envoys-meet-in-qatar-amid-peace-push/29950646.html
|
2019-05-19 09:14:42+00:00
| 1,558,271,682 | 1,567,540,493 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
469,408 |
rferl--2019-05-30--Afghan Politicians Taliban Cite Tremendous Progress During Moscow Peace Talks
| 2019-05-30T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
Afghan Politicians, Taliban Cite 'Tremendous Progress' During Moscow Peace Talks
|
Senior Afghan politicians and the Taliban said they made progress during peace talks in Russia, although they did not make any significant breakthrough. The May 28-30 talks in Moscow came amid international efforts to end the nearly 18-year war in Afghanistan. In a May 30 joint statement, the sides said they held "productive and constructive" talks focusing on a possible cease-fire, the "strengthening of the Islamic system," and "women's rights." "Both sides have had tremendous progress, but some issues require further discussions," the statement read. Suhail Shaheen, a spokesman for the Taliban's negotiating team, said that "spectacular progress" was made on issues including the withdrawal of international forces and a future political settlement. However, Ata Mohammad Noor, a powerful regional leader, expressed some disappointment. "Our expectations were higher," Noor said. "Our main message was on the cease-fire; a cease-fire could be the beginning of peace." The sides met in Moscow on May 28 for a ceremony during which Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called for the complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. The three-day meeting was the second hosted by Russia in recent months. Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. envoy seeking a peace deal with the Taliban, has held several rounds of talks with the militants in Qatar. The sides have made progress, but the Taliban has so far rejected direct negotiations with Kabul. Khalilzad has welcomed Russia’s peace efforts, although some U.S. officials have said Moscow was promoting itself as a power broker to challenge the U.S.-backed peace process with the Taliban. The Taliban, which continues to stage daily attacks across Afghanistan, now effectively controls or influences about half of the country.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/afghan-politicians-taliban-cite-tremendous-progress-during-moscow-peace-talks/29972871.html
|
2019-05-30 18:32:31+00:00
| 1,559,255,551 | 1,567,539,745 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
469,623 |
rferl--2019-06-22--Dozens Of Afghan Politicians At Pakistan Meeting To Bolster Peace Efforts With Taliban
| 2019-06-22T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
Dozens Of Afghan Politicians At Pakistan Meeting To Bolster Peace Efforts With Taliban
|
Dozens of senior Afghan political figures are attending a peace conference in neighboring Pakistan aimed at paving the way for an intra-Afghan dialogue to end almost two decades of war with the Taliban. The June 22 conference came ahead of a new round of peace talks between the United States and the Taliban in Qatar that is scheduled for June 29. The one-day conference at the tourist resort of Bhurban, about 70 kilometers from the capital Islamabad, also came ahead of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's June 27 visit to Pakistan. Pakistan is believed to have influence within the Taliban and Islamabad’s support is considered key to ending the nearly 18-year insurgency. Ghani, his political opponents, and a broad swath of civil society have been meeting in recent days with the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, who has been pushing for talks between the Afghan government, the opposition, and the Taliban. There are no representatives of the Taliban or the Western-backed Kabul government at the peace conference in Bhurban. Among the over 30 high-profile Afghan figures attending the conference are Atta Mohammad Noor, a powerful figure from northern Afghanistan; Ghani's former national-security adviser Hanif Atmar, who is contesting the presidential election; and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a notorious former warlord from the Hezb-e Islami political party. Influential ex-President Hamid Karzai was invited but did not attend. Afghanistan and Pakistan are looking to improve bilateral relations that are often hampered by mistrust and reciprocal accusations. Kabul and Washington have long accused Pakistan of harboring Taliban militants who launch attacks inside Afghanistan, but Ghani said he was hopeful that years of mistrust can be replaced by cooperation toward peace. Pakistan has offered support to U.S. efforts to broker an end to Afghanistan's long war the Taliban. Khalilzad, the U.S. envoy seeking a peace deal with the Taliban, has held several rounds of talks in Qatar with senior members of the militant group. The sides have made progress. But the Taliban has so far rejected direct negotiations with the Afghan government.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/afghan-politicians-in-pakistan-seeking-path-to-peace-talks-with-taliban/30014180.html
|
2019-06-22 13:35:48+00:00
| 1,561,224,948 | 1,567,538,399 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
469,751 |
rferl--2019-06-30--New Round Of Afghan Peace Talks Held Amid Deadly Attacks
| 2019-06-30T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
New Round Of Afghan Peace Talks Held Amid Deadly Attacks
|
KABUL -- U.S. and Taliban negotiators have held a new round of talks in Qatar to try to put an end to the war in Afghanistan, amid continued attacks by the militant group on Afghan officials and security forces. The seventh round of talks with Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. peace envoy for Afghanistan, is "critical," Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen said on June 30, the second day of meetings in the Qatari capital, Doha, where the militant group maintains a political office. Shaheen told AP that the two sides were looking for "tangible results" as they try to finalize agreements to end the nearly 18-year Afghan conflict -- the longest war in U.S. history. The Taliban negotiating team is led by Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who co-founded the movement with the late Mullah Mohammad Omar. The negotiations are expected to focus on working out a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan and on a Taliban guarantee that militants will not plot attacks from Afghan soil. The Taliban, driven from power by the U.S.-led invasion in 2001, now controls large swaths of Afghanistan's territory. The militant group has so far refused to talk directly to the Afghan government in Kabul, calling it a puppet of the West, and has continued to carry out nearly daily attacks across Afghanistan. Late on June 29, a bomb attack in the southern province of Kandahar killed eight employees of the Independent Election Commission (IEC), according to Afghan officials. They said the IEC employees were stationed at the government office in the Maruf district to register voters ahead of presidential polls set for September when the attack occurred. Police said members of the security forces also suffered some casualties in the bombing, which was claimed by the Taliban. Separately, an attack on a military checkpoint in Farah Province's Bala Buluk district left at least eight Afghan soldiers dead and eight more injured, local officials said. On June 29, it was reported that Taliban militants attacked security posts in the northern province of Baghlan, killing at least 26 pro-government militiamen. A Defense Ministry official in Kabul said the attack in Baghlan indicated that the Taliban wanted to negotiate from a position of strength. The previous round of peace talks between the United States and the Taliban took place in May. During an unannounced visit to Kabul on June 25, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he hoped for a peace deal with the Taliban "before September 1."
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/new-round-of-afghan-peace-talks-opens-in-qatar/30028238.html
|
2019-06-30 06:34:40+00:00
| 1,561,890,880 | 1,567,537,513 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
470,105 |
rferl--2019-08-01--Interview US Envoy Backs Afghan Presidential Election If No Peace Deal
| 2019-08-01T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
Interview: U.S. Envoy Backs Afghan Presidential Election If No Peace Deal
|
KABUL -- The U.S. peace envoy seeking to negotiate an end to the nearly 18-year war in Afghanistan said peace negotiations between Kabul and the Taliban will determine whether the presidential election slated for September 28 is held. In an interview with RFE/RL in the Afghan capital on July 31, Zalmay Khalilzad said the vote "depends on the outcome of the negotiations among the Afghans." "We support any outcome that is reached," said Khalilzad, a veteran diplomat and a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. "But until that outcome is reached, we support [holding] the election." U.S. officials have privately floated the possibility that the vote could be canceled in the event of a peace settlement and the formation of an interim government that the Taliban would join. There is support among the Taliban and Afghan opposition figures, but President Ashraf Ghani has strongly rejected it. U.S. officials have said they hope to reach a peace agreement by September 1. Khalilzad has held eight rounds of peace talks with the Taliban in Qatar, with both sides saying they have made significant progress on several components of a peace deal. But the Afghan government has been left out of the negotiations, with the Taliban refusing to deal with what they call a "U.S. puppet." Khalilzad has said a comprehensive peace agreement will cover four key issues: the withdrawal of foreign troops, a Taliban guarantee to prevent terrorist attacks from Afghanistan, inter-Afghan dialogue leading to a political settlement, and a permanent cease-fire. In acknowledging the delicate situation, he has stressed that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed." Khalilzad, who was in Kabul for the past nine days for talks with Afghans, said his visit was "the most productive" since he was made a special envoy in September last year. "We have reached an agreement with the Afghan government about the next steps towards reaching an agreement with the Taliban and towards peace," he said. In a Twitter post on July 31, Khalilzad said he was off for another round of talks with the militants, and "if the Taliban do their part, we will do ours, and conclude the agreement we have been working on." A bilateral U.S.-Taliban agreement to come first covers the withdrawal of foreign forces in exchange for guarantees by the Taliban not to harbor terrorist groups. That deal will be a prelude to intra-Afghan peace negotiations on a political settlement and a permanent cease-fire. The Taliban has said it will only negotiate with Kabul when Washington commits to withdrawing its troops. Khalilzad stressed that the internationally-backed Kabul government would be only one actor in the intra-Afghan talks, alongside senior opposition leaders, civil society members, and women. "A negotiating team representing the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is being finalized," said Khalilzad. "At the same time, a technical team that would support the negotiation team is being finalized. These are positive steps." In expectations that Washington was close to agreeing an agreement with the Taliban, Afghanistan's Ministry of Peace Affairs announced on July 31 that it had appointed a 15-member delegation to negotiate with the Taliban. It was unclear where those talks would be held, although reports said it could be in a European country. Khalilzad also defended remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump, who said on July 22 that "If we wanted to fight a war in Afghanistan and win it, I could win that war in a week. I just don't want to kill 10 million people." The controversial remarks prompted anger in Afghanistan, where the government demanded that Trump clarify his comments. Khalilzad said what the president meant was that "war is not the solution and a lot of people will be killed if we continue the war." "I think [Trump's] intention is to solve the Afghanistan problem -- and that's why he appointed me -- through a peaceful way. Peace is the priority," he said. When asked why the war in Afghanistan had dragged on for almost 18 years, Khalilzad said some local and international actors were against peace. "There are some who benefit from the continuation of the war and take advantage of the war," he said. U.S. and Afghan officials have long accused Pakistan of supporting the Taliban. Russia and Iran have also established contacts with the militant group. On Pakistan, Khalilzad said he had witnessed a "positive change" in its policies toward Afghanistan, its western neighbor. "They want to help," said Khalilzad, referring to Islamabad. "But we always want Pakistan to take further steps."
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/interview-u-s-envoy-backs-afghan-presidential-election-if-no-peace-deal/30087370.html
|
2019-08-01 13:55:40+00:00
| 1,564,682,140 | 1,567,535,146 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
470,548 |
rferl--2019-09-04--Afghan Officials Express Concern Over Draft US-Taliban Peace Deal
| 2019-09-04T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
Afghan Officials Express Concern Over Draft U.S.-Taliban Peace Deal
|
Afghan officials say they support progress toward peace but are concerned about a draft agreement reached "in principle" between U.S. and Taliban negotiators on ending their 18-year conflict. Afghan presidential spokesman Sediq Sediqqi said in a series of tweets on September 4 that despite seeing a draft accord, questions remained over the contents of a deal and how it would be implemented. "The Afghan government supports any progress in the peace process that will lead to lasting peace and an end to the war in Afghanistan, but the main concern of the Afghan government in the U.S. agreement with the Taliban is that of the consequences and dangers. How will they be prevented?" he said. Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. diplomat who has led nearly a year of negotiations with the Taliban in Qatar, told RFE/RL on September 2 that the two sides had reached a deal "in principle" to end hostilities. Under the draft peace deal, the Taliban agreed that any Afghan territory it controls in the future will not be used as a sanctuary for terrorists to launch attacks against the United States and its allies. U.S. and Taliban negotiators also agreed on the gradual "reduction and withdrawal" of Western forces from Afghanistan, Khalizad said. News of the deal prompted nine former U.S. ambassadors on September 3 to warn that Afghanistan could collapse into "total civil war" if the United States withdraws its forces before a "real" peace deal involving the Kabul government is reached with the Taliban. Sediqqi echoed those sentiments in his tweets. "As former officials and U.S. senators have concerns about the implications of this memorandum, the Afghan government is also concerned, and we therefore call for clarity on this document to address its dangers and consequences," he said. Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Washington would reduce its troop presence in Afghanistan by almost half, to 8,600, if the peace deal was finalized. The Taliban, which refuses to negotiate with the Afghan government calling it a foreign-imposed "puppet" regime, has long demanded a complete pullout of all foreign forces from the country. About 20,000 foreign troops, most of them American, are now in Afghanistan as part of a U.S.-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan forces. Some U.S. forces carry out counterterrorism operations. The nine former U.S. ambassadors served under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Trump. They include James Dobbins, John Negroponte, and Ryan Crocker.
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/afghan-officials-express-concern-over-draft-us-taliban-peace-deal/30146084.html
|
2019-09-04 10:54:35+00:00
| 1,567,608,875 | 1,569,331,484 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
471,233 |
rferl--2019-11-01--Kyiv Says Date For Four-Way Peace Talks Depends Upon Russia
| 2019-11-01T00:00:00 |
rferl
|
Kyiv Says Date For Four-Way Peace Talks Depends Upon Russia
|
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystayko says the timing of a four-way summit aimed at resolving the conflict in eastern Ukraine depends upon Russia. Meanwhile, Ukraine's Defense Minister Andriy Zahorodnyuk said on November 1 that Kyiv was postponing the withdrawal of its forces from the town of Petrivske, a disengagement that had been planned for November 4, because of a cease-fire violation by Russia-backed separatists that occurred there on October 30. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy had said on October 31 that the Petrivske disengagement would take place on November 4 provided the pro-Russia separatists there continued to respect a cease-fire agreement, The disengagement of forces near Petrivske is seen as key step ahead of a long-awaited summit that would bring together leaders from Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany to discuss how to end the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine between Ukrainian government forces and Russia-backed separatists. Ukrainian armed forces have been fighting the separatists in Luhansk and the neighboring Donetsk region in a conflict that has killed more than 13,000 people since April 2014. Under a deal reached earlier this month to end the five-year conflict, the sides agreed to start withdrawing from their positions near Petrivske and the town of Zolote. "We are implementing the agreements that were reached," Prystayko told a press briefing in Kyiv on November 1. "Effectively, there are two: recognizing the Steinmeier Formula as a way of solving this complicated issue, and disengagement at three sites. Today, we are close to disengaging at the last site, so in principle we will create all necessary conditions," Prystayko said. The Steinmeier Formula lays the groundwork for reinvigorating the larger peace deals known loosely as the Minsk Accords, and the first major international summit on the Ukraine conflict in three years. "Currently, [the so-called Normandy-format meeting] largely depends on the Russian side," Prystayko said. Prystayko's statement comes after he voiced hope on October 29 that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy would meet his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, next month for peace talks mediated by the leaders of France and Germany, in what is known as the Normandy format. During a visit to Budapest on October 30, Putin said he was ready to have a meeting with the leaders of Ukraine, France, and Germany. But Putin said such a meeting "needs to be well-prepared and produce specific results that will help the settlement." Speaking in Kyiv on November 1, Deputy Prime Minister Dmytro Kuleba said Ukraine planned to conduct large-scale exercises in the Black Sea with NATO next year, lasting four days. With reporting by Reuters, AFP, and Interfax
| null |
https://www.rferl.org/a/kyiv-says-date-for-four-way-peace-talks-depends-upon-russia/30248533.html
|
Fri, 01 Nov 2019 16:12:34 +0000
| 1,572,639,154 | 1,572,647,516 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
504,866 |
sottnet--2019-08-15--Decade in the making US-Taliban peace deal appears within reach
| 2019-08-15T00:00:00 |
sottnet
|
Decade in the making: US-Taliban peace deal appears within reach
|
In the fall of 2010, U.S. officials secretly met a young Taliban representative outside the southern German city of Munich.Tayyib Agha, a member of the militant group's political wing, presented the U.S. diplomats with a road map for a negotiated end to the war.It was not the United States' first contact with the Taliban.There had been contact between U.S. and Taliban military commanders. But the 2010 meeting, brokered by Germany, was a turning point in the conflict."For the first time, both the Taliban and the United States had some degree of seriousness in seeking talks towards a political settlement," Jarrett Blanc, a former diplomat who was involved in former President Barack Obama administration's negotiations with the Taliban, tells RFE/RL.But in the intervening years, meaningful U.S.-Taliban talks failed to take off, hampered by mutual mistrust, missed opportunities, protests by the Afghan government, and the deaths of two successive Taliban leaders.Now, nearly a decade since those initial secret contacts, the United States and the Taliban are apparently on the verge of agreeing to a landmark peace deal that would end the United States' longest-ever war.A U.S.-Taliban deal would see the withdrawal of at least some foreign troops from Afghanistan in return for Taliban guarantees that the country would not become a haven for terrorist groups. That agreement would commit the militants to launch separate negotiations with the Western-backed Kabul government over a political settlement and a permanent cease-fire.Afghan security forces arrive after a powerful explosion outside the provincial police headquarters in Kandahar Province last month. Talks have not led to any drop in Taliban attacks.For years, U.S. policy was to facilitate an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process between the Kabul government and the Taliban. But with the Taliban refusing to negotiate with state officials -- who they view as illegitimate -- the peace process was deadlocked.says Blanc, who from 2009-15 was first a senior adviser to U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke and later the deputy and then the acting special representative."Eventually there needed to be an intra-Afghan deal, but there was also a conflict between the U.S. and the Taliban that needed to be addressed," Blanc adds. "We couldn't outsource that to the Afghan government and the Taliban wouldn't accept that in any case because they didn't think the Afghan government spoke for our military forces."The Afghan government has protested and vented its anger at being sidelined from the U.S.-Taliban negotiations. But significantly, Khalilzad has said that even if the United States and the Taliban come to an agreement,"Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed," Khalilzad has said.The eighth round of U.S.-Taliban talks ended on August 12, with both sides hammering out the technical details and the implementation mechanisms of the potential agreement.The broad outlines of the agreement have been widely reported in U.S. media.Preparations are also under way in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, where Khalilzad visited last week, for the launch of intra-Afghan negotiations.A draft of the agreement is also reported to includeThere is also no reported mention of the September 28 presidential election, with many Afghans believing that the vote may be postponed or scrapped altogether.In Afghanistan,"There's very much a risk of a peace deal that doesn't bring peace," Blanc says. "It depends on how well the United States plays its hand and uses its substantial remaining leverage provided by the continued U.S. troop presence. It also depends on how well Afghan parties, including the Afghan government, play their hand in intra-Afghan negotiations."Javid Ahmad, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Atlantic Council, says the United States needs to address several key "flaws" in the potential agreement.This includes the United States conditioning its final withdrawal date on full and verifiable implementation of the intra-Afghan deal, he says, adding that the absence of a small, enduring U.S. military presence raised concerns over how the overall agreement will be implemented.He also says Washington needs to "exercise caution" while releasing the 13,000 Taliban prisoners to ensure that those freed do not join extremist groups like the Islamic State."Too much focus has been placed on securing a deal [on] paper and less so on the implementation," Ahmad says. "For now, the United States, it seems, is concerned about the former while the Afghan government is worried about the latter."
| null |
https://www.sott.net/article/418611-Decade-in-the-making-US-Taliban-peace-deal-appears-within-reach
|
2019-08-15 17:08:53+00:00
| 1,565,903,333 | 1,567,534,179 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
507,906 |
sottnet--2019-11-08--Hadi and Zubaidi to implement a peace deal to stabilize Yemen in the wake of secession threats
| 2019-11-08T00:00:00 |
sottnet
|
Hadi and Zubaidi to implement a peace deal to stabilize Yemen in the wake of secession threats
|
The internationally recognized Yemeni government, led by President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, and the Southern Transitional Council (STC), headed by Aidarus Zubaidi,media reported.The two leaders held a meeting on Thursday. During it, the president noted the "importance of making steps toward the implementation of all details of the Riyadh agreement to stabilize the situation in the south of the country", Al Arabiya reported Zubaidi, in his turn, noted the STC's readiness to support Hadi and work together with the government for the peace deal implementation. Hadi also expressed his willingness to settle the situation in southern Yemen as soon as possible through comprehensive peace dialogue.The STC was created in 2017 and Zubaidi, the former governor of Aden, became its chief.In 1990, the southern Democratic Republic of Yemen and the northern Yemen Arab Republic united into what today is Yemen. The south has been since seeking secession . The military confrontation between the south and north has been ongoing in parallel with the civil conflict between the government forces and the Houthi militia.Since 2015, the Saudi-led coalition joined the military action on the side of Yemeni President Abdrabuh Mansour Hadi's forces.The United Nations has repeatedly called the Yemeni conflict the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with an
| null |
https://www.sott.net/article/423517-Hadi-and-Zubaidi-to-implement-a-peace-deal-to-stabilize-Yemen-in-the-wake-of-secession-threats
|
Fri, 08 Nov 2019 18:45:50 +0000
| 1,573,256,750 | 1,573,260,085 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
525,040 |
sputnik--2019-02-11--Trump Administration Finishes Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan Reports
| 2019-02-11T00:00:00 |
sputnik
|
Trump Administration Finishes Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan – Reports
|
The final draft of the administration’s “Deal of the Century” is 175 to 200 pages long, with fewer than five people having access to the complete version of the document, sources told Fox News. “The plan is done… [the president] is happy with the parameters of the deal,” a senior administration official said. The US President has also been briefed by US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, his Senior Adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner as well as special envoy for Mideast peace Jason Greenblatt multiple times on the specifics of the deal, according to the source. Kushner is set to visit Warsaw to attend a summit hosted by the United States and Poland to discuss regional issues regarding the Middle East. Kushner is also expected to travel with Greenblatt to five Gulf countries to discuss the specifics of the Trump administration’s Israeli-Palestinian peace deal with regional leaders, gathering support for his plan. Senior government officials have noted that his plan is unlikely to be released before the upcoming Israeli elections on April 9. “We are not going to do anything that threatens Israel’s security,” a senior administration official said. The Palestinian Autonomy had rejected earlier attempts by the US to single-handedly negotiate a peace agreement with Israel following Trump's decision in December 2017 to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem and acknowledge the whole city as Israel's capital. Trump's decision also escalated tensions between the Palestinian Authority and Israel and led to massive clashes on the Israeli border with the Gaza Strip. However, in September 2018 the US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said that the Trump administration’s long-awaited peace plan for Israel and Palestine would be completed soon.
| null |
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201902111072300168-trump-administration-finishes-israeli-palestinian-deal/
|
2019-02-11 04:57:00+00:00
| 1,549,879,020 | 1,567,548,951 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
526,565 |
sputnik--2019-02-24--CAR Leader Pledges to Create Inclusive Govt After Peace Deal With Armed Groups
| 2019-02-24T00:00:00 |
sputnik
|
CAR Leader Pledges to Create Inclusive Gov't After Peace Deal With Armed Groups
|
"The president of the republic, the head of state, is committed to creating an inclusive government immediately after the signing of this agreement", Article 21 of the agreement says. The statement comes after Touadera and leaders of 14 armed groups signed on February 5 the peace deal, aimed at putting an end to the long-term conflict in the country. This was the result of almost two weeks of talks in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum. On 5 February, CAR President Faustin-Archange Touadera and leaders of 14 armed groups initiated the peace agreement at talks in Khartoum. A day later, the deal was finalised and inked in the CAR capital of Bangui by the participants in the talks. The Central African Republic has been suffering from a drawn-out conflict since a coup in 2013. Much of the fighting in recent years has been between Muslim-majority Seleka and Christian Anti-Balaka militias.
| null |
https://sputniknews.com/africa/201902241072696615-car-agreement-government/
|
2019-02-24 12:42:00+00:00
| 1,551,030,120 | 1,567,547,518 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
537,099 |
sputnik--2019-07-01--Afghan Peace Germany Qatar to Host Taliban-US Dialogue in Doha - US Special Envoy
| 2019-07-01T00:00:00 |
sputnik
|
Afghan Peace: Germany, Qatar to Host Taliban-US Dialogue in Doha - US Special Envoy
|
"I want to thank Germany [and] Qatar for agreeing to host the upcoming July 7-8 intra-Afghan Dialogue Conference. This dialogue is an essential element of the four-part peace framework [and] an important step in advancing the Afghan Peace Process", Khalilzad said via Twitter. The Taliban and the United States are trying to reach a peace deal that will include the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan and assurances from the Taliban that the country will not be used as a safe haven for terrorists. The US has said that it seeks a comprehensive deal that also includes a permanent ceasefire and intra-Afghan talks. The Taliban said they do not want to discuss intra-Afghan talks and a ceasefire with the United States. The Taliban-US peace talks have entered the third day in the Qatari capital of Doha. A Taliban official said earlier that he hoped the talks would be effective. The insurgents want US troops to leave the country in return for guarantees that it will not harbor foreign militants. Washington wants the Taliban to agree to a permanent ceasefire and enter direct talks with the Afghan government, whom the Taliban consider to be a US puppet. Last week, spokesman for the movement said that the Taliban hope to reach a peace deal for Afghanistan with the United States within two months. *The Taliban is a terrorist group banned in Russia and many other countries.
| null |
https://sputniknews.com/world/201907021076118394-afghan-peace-germany-qatar-to-host-taliban-us-dialogue-in-doha---us-special-envoy/
|
2019-07-01 22:50:28+00:00
| 1,562,035,828 | 1,567,537,407 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
542,100 |
sputnik--2019-08-26--We Will Continue Our Fight Taliban Commander Vows No Peace With Kabul Despite US Deal
| 2019-08-26T00:00:00 |
sputnik
|
‘We Will Continue Our Fight’: Taliban Commander Vows No Peace With Kabul Despite US Deal
|
Nine rounds of negotiations in Doha, Qatar, are close to yielding a peace agreement between US forces and the Taliban, a Sunni Islamist militant group that became Washington’s primary adversary after being thrown out of power by the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. While US diplomats have insisted that their agreement with the Taliban includes a pledge to seek peaceful resolution with the Washington-allied government in Kabul, two unnamed Taliban leaders told Reuters for a Monday story that their struggle with the Afghan government would not end when the US exits the country. “We will continue our fight against the Afghan government and seize power by force,” a commander in the militant group told Reuters. “The Americans will not come to the assistance of the Afghan government and its forces in their fight against us.” A second Taliban commander also noted the coming peace deal with Washington, expected to be signed this week, would see the end of US support for Kabul. Negotiations between the US and the Taliban began late last year and have conspicuously excluded Kabul representatives, since the Taliban regards the government of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani as an illegitimate puppet government of Washington. The US seeks an exit from the Afghan war, which will enter its 19th year this coming October. The US invaded and overthrew the Taliban as retribution for the group having provided shelter for terrorist group al-Qaeda, permitting them to train and organize for a wave of terrorist attacks against US installations around the world, culminating in the September 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Fighting has continued unabated since the talks began, however - and it’s been a deadly year. A bomb in a Kabul wedding hall earlier this month killed 63 partygoers and injured 183 - an attack claimed by Daesh, which has expanded its network in the Central Asian country in recent months. A report published last month by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan found the US was responsible for more civilian deaths in the country than the Taliban. At least 3,812 civilians were killed or wounded in the first half of 2019, which 52% of those deaths firmly attributable to the US and its allies, according to the report. However, after the Reuters report was published early Monday morning, US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad pushed back, tweeting that the anonymous Taliban fighters had all their information wrong and shouldn’t be listened to. “A Reuters report quoting two unnamed Talib commanders alleges we will cease support of the Afghan forces as part of any agreement. Not true!” he wrote on Twitter Monday . “No one should be intimidated or fooled by propoganda! Let me be clear: We will defend Afghan forces now and after any agreement w/ the Talibs. All sides agree Afghanistan’s future will be determined in intra-Afghan negotiations.” The US still has about 14,000 troops in the country, the majority of which are part of the NATO-led Resolute Support in Afghanistan mission to train, advise and assist the Afghan Armed Forces. However, about 5,000 members of that force might be on their way home soon, once the deal is signed, according to a Washington Post report earlier this month who cited anonymous US officials. The latest report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), published late last month, also noted that Afghan forces are at their lowest levels since 2015. Although the report noted that the intense fighting has been confined mostly to five provinces - Helmand, Badghis, Faryab, Herat and Farah - Resolute Support stopped reporting district control numbers to SIGAR last October, after US President Donald Trump directed them to stop publishing reports the enemy could read. "They do a report on every single thing that's happening, and they release it to the public," Trump lamented in January, at his first Cabinet meeting of the year. "We're fighting wars, and they're doing reports and releasing it to the public? Now, the public means the enemy. The enemy reads those reports; they study every line of it. Those reports should be private reports … I don’t want it to happen anymore.”
| null |
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201908261076645556-we-will-continue-our-fight-taliban-commander-vows-no-peace-with-kabul-despite-us-deal/
|
2019-08-26 19:00:00+00:00
| 1,566,860,400 | 1,567,533,386 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
542,619 |
sputnik--2019-08-30--Taliban Spokesman Denies Peace Deal Reports Says Wait Before Talks With US End
| 2019-08-30T00:00:00 |
sputnik
|
Taliban Spokesman Denies Peace Deal Reports, Says Wait Before Talks With US End
|
"Some social media broadcast some material about a peace agreement of Qatar talks. These materials … are not original. Hopefully no one should broadcast about this before the last discussions," he said. Another Taliban spokesman said this week that the negotiators were closing in on a peace deal that will ensure an end to the 18-year war in Afghanistan. This comes as US President Donald Trump reiterated on Thursday that he wanted to downsize the US military force in the country but did not offer a timeline for the withdrawal, which is what the Taliban demands. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo mentioned earlier in the week that the US seeks to pull out US troops from the war-raveged country to halt Washington's longest war in history. The United States and the Taliban have been trying to make a peace deal that would include the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan in exchange for the Taliban's guarantee the country will not be used as a safe haven for terrorists. However, the ongoing peace talks exclude the Afghan government, as the Taliban accuses the authorities in Kabul of being US puppets. The US-Talban talks come ahead of the presidential election in Afghanistan set for September 28. The Taliban has threatened to disrupt the election, while the Afghan government has vowed to safeguard the democratic process. The US launched its so-called Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, a month after the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. The initial US operation
| null |
https://sputniknews.com/asia/201908301076685394-taliban-spokesman-denies-peace-deal-reports-says-wait-before-talks-with-us-end/
|
2019-08-30 18:28:21+00:00
| 1,567,204,101 | 1,569,416,986 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
542,736 |
sputnik--2019-08-31--US-Taliban Talks in Doha Fail to Yield Final Peace Deal on Afghanistan
| 2019-08-31T00:00:00 |
sputnik
|
US-Taliban Talks in Doha Fail to Yield Final Peace Deal on Afghanistan
|
The issues discussed during the Qatar talks include pulling out foreign armed forces from Afghanistan, a comprehensive ceasefire, prisoner release and future intra-Afghan negotiations. While some, like Wahidullah Ghazi Khel, the spokesman for the new National Front have hope that the technical teams working on both sides will reach an agreement shortly, the overall attitude regarding the possibility of a deal is not a positive one, the correspondent reported. After the peace deal is signed, inter-Afghan talks between the Taliban and other political movements are reportedly expected to begin. The Taliban insist that the Afghan authorities should participate in the talks not as a government but as a political movement. The peace talks, meanwhile, were overshadowed by overnight clashes between the Taliban and the Afghan government forces in Kunduz. While the Afghan government has claimed that the attack had been successfully repelled, the Sputnik correspondent has reported that there were fears that the fighting could continue and that the Taliban might have a chance to seize the city. The US-Taliban talks come ahead of the 28 September presidential election in Afghanistan. The Taliban have threatened to disrupt the election, while the government has vowed to safeguard the democratic process. Conflict-struck Afghanistan has been long torn by fighting between government troops and the Taliban, who are currently negotiating a peace deal with the United States. US President Donald Trump reiterated on Thursday that he wanted to downsize the US military force in the country but did not offer a timeline for the withdrawal, which is what the Taliban demands. *The Taliban is a terrorist organization banned in Russia and many other states.
| null |
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201909011076693535-us-taliban-talks-in-doha-fail-to-yield-final-peace-deal-on-afghanistan/
|
2019-08-31 23:58:30+00:00
| 1,567,310,310 | 1,569,416,883 |
conflict, war and peace
|
peace process
|
1,409 |
abcnews--2019-01-31--Democrat meets with undocumented immigrants who were fired from Trumps golf club
| 2019-01-31T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
Democrat meets with undocumented immigrants who were fired from Trump's golf club
|
Undocumented immigrants who were fired from Trump National Golf Clubs after revealing their immigration status say they suffered physical and verbal abuse while employed there, and now fear deportation and retaliation after their employment was terminated. Four of those undocumented workers were on Capitol Hill Tuesday to meet with Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, where one of President Donald Trump’s golf clubs is based. The firings highlight the disconnect between Trump’s businesses demonstrably relying on undocumented workers while the president himself relentlessly crusades against allowing undocumented immigrants into the country -- even shutting down the government over his demands for a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. “I applaud the courage of these hardworking immigrants," Menendez said in a statement. "The hardships they experienced while working for Trump National speaks volumes about President Trump’s hypocrisy, when he rails against immigrants while simultaneously exploiting their status and labor to enrich himself.” The employees with which Menendez met were fired after publicly revealing their immigration status, and are now “living under constant fear of being subjected to deportation or other retaliation by the Trump administration,” according to a press release from Menendez’s office. "We are hard workers and all we care about is working," Margarita Cruz, a former housekeeper at the Westchester club told ABC News on Wednesday. "We are hoping that maybe someday we’ll have some sort of work permit.” Some of the workers allege that they were provided false identification documents by their employers. Others allege that they were encouraged by their employers to provide false identification documents. They also claim that they suffered verbal and physical assault from Trump property supervisors -- and were repeatedly threatened with deportation while on the job. An aide to Menendez told ABC News that the workers say that it was common knowledge that they were undocumented. The fired workers also claimed to Menendez' staff that there are more immigrants without legal status currently working for the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J. Trump Organization officials did not immediately respond to ABC News requests for comment. About a dozen undocumented workers from Latin America employed by the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, N.Y. were fired on January 18 because of their immigration status, The Washington Post reported. Trump Organization officials have said that they plan to institute E-Verify, a federal program that allows employers to check if new hires are legally allowed to work in the U.S., at every one of its golf clubs, hotels and resorts, according to the Washington Post. During the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Donald Trump claimed that his businesses already used the system and proposed a federal mandate that all companies do the say. In an interview with the Washington Post, Eric Trump said that the family business has begun implementing stricter employment standards in the wake of news reports exposing dozens of undocumented workers at the president's properties. “I must say, for me personally, this whole thing is truly heartbreaking," Eric Trump told the Post. That comment surprised some of the immigrants who met with Menendez. "I don’t know why he feels like that, because after so long seeing us, and like -- without notice -- like, go talk to us -- just fired us like garbage, why does he feel like that?” Gabriel Sedano, a 14-year employee of the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester County, N.Y., who was among those fired, told ABC News in an interview on Wednesday. A lawyer representing Sedano and dozens of other undocumented workers who are former Trump employees told ABC News that his clients are witnesses to a federal crime and should be protected. "They understand that, indeed, they are material witnesses to a federal crime and any attempt to try to remove them from the United States could be considered obstruction of justice," attorney Anibal Romero said. "In the United States... even though you are undocumented, the law protects undocumented immigrants when they are victims of a crime," he added. Menendez said he intends to defend the dismissed former Trump property employees. “I plan to lend my voice to raise awareness about the plight of these and other immigrants working in such a hostile environment and support oversight efforts and investigations on this matter,” Menendez said. “I believe that any attempt to try to affect [the workers'] status during this period of time could be considered obstruction of justice at the end of the day.” Menendez said he plans to follow up with the relevant federal agencies to raise his concerns while those agencies look into the matter, one of the senator's aides told ABC News. “The workers have material information and we are exploring ways to support them,” the aide said.
|
Mariam Khan
|
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-meets-undocumented-immigrants-fired-trumps-golf-club/story?id=60725181
|
2019-01-31 00:21:20+00:00
| 1,548,912,080 | 1,567,550,098 |
society
|
immigration
|
1,635 |
abcnews--2019-03-14--Feds target ex-con attorney imposter for allegedly duping undocumented immigrants
| 2019-03-14T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
Feds target ex-con ‘attorney imposter’ for allegedly duping undocumented immigrants
|
Federal authorities in Pennsylvania are investigating an ex-con who they say preyed on undocumented immigrants by posing as a lawyer and offering thousands of dollars' worth of "legal services" she was not licensed to provide. At times, 55-year-old Ana Molina of Philadelphia would even use the personal information of past clients to fraudulently bolster immigration cases for her newer clients, a Homeland Security Investigations agent alleged in court documents. "Molina is an attorney imposter," the agent said in the documents. "Molina accepts money for filing applications for legal status adjustments the client may not even qualify for." The case shows that even as the Trump administration cracks down on undocumented immigrants inside the United States, the Justice Department is still trying to root out criminals who would target vulnerable immigrants, as recently described by the department. But an attorney representing Molina said the case only shows a "not-so-subtle attempt to bully Ms. Molina into ending the immigration assistance she provides to immigrants who come to this country in search of a better life." "It should not surprise anyone that in this current political climate, [the federal government] is targeting an immigrant who makes a living helping other immigrants get their affairs in order," the attorney said in a statement to ABC News. A decade ago, Molina served more than two years in prison after pleading guilty to money-laundering charges connected to a drug trafficking case. After her release, a federal judge allowed her to operate an immigration services business in Philadelphia. But in court documents filed Tuesday, federal investigators alleged Molina used that business, "Molina Multilegal Services," to dupe undocumented immigrants and their families or friends out of thousands of dollars. She even threatened clients who sought to get their money back, the court documents alleged. Although Molina has yet to be charged, the court documents said there is "probable cause to believe" Molina committed mail fraud and identity theft, citing several cases of Molina's "fraudulent legal representation" in recent years. In some cases, Molina stole "identity documents from unwitting individuals and used their information" to "defraud" U.S. agencies into believing applicants for immigration status were financially secure and wouldn't need government assistance, according to the court documents. Several years ago, a Dominican woman allegedly paid Molina $1,800 to resolve her husband's immigration case. To prove the couple's financial security, the woman provided Molina with her tax returns. But when the couple grew dissatisfied with Molina's assistance and asked for their money back, Molina allegedly refused, instead telling the husband he was "illegal and couldn’t do anything," the husband later recalled to federal authorities, according to the court records. Then, after being hired by a man from Jamaica, Molina used the Dominican woman's tax forms to file documents on behalf of the Jamaican client, federal authorities alleged. Molina previously earned a degree in "paralegal studies," according to an online profile of Molina, which was taken down after Wednesday's raid. Her company's website, however, describes her as a "renowned lawyer," and — according to court documents — she repeatedly claimed to prospective clients that she is a practicing attorney, including during a recorded phone call two weeks ago. In his statement to ABC News, the attorney representing Molina, Joseph Lento, said she "will defend herself and the work she does." "Ms. Molina maintains her innocence and believes that many of the allegations in the [court documents] are either inaccurate or flat-out untrue," Lento said. Molina's case is one of many such cases around the country. In 2016 alone, federal authorities received more than 1,100 complaints related to immigration services. But "quantifying the scope of immigration services fraud is difficult because scams are underreported," according to the Washington, D.C.-based organization Ayuda, which provides legal assistance to immigrants and whose name means "help" in Spanish. Last year, a federal jury in Philadelphia convicted a 65-year-old New Jersey man on several fraud charges for what prosecutors described as his "brazen behavior in posing, for decades, as a licensed attorney." Leaford Cameron took more than $200,000 from at least 100 victims, many of whom were immigrants and low-income people, according to a Justice Department press release on the case. He was sentenced to 12 years behind bars. "Far from a guardian of the law, Cameron is a crook whose fraud caused serious harm to his victims and the public's trust in our legal institutions," the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, William McSwain, said at the time. Cameron has appealed his conviction, and that appeal is still pending. McSwain's office is now overseeing the investigation targeting Molina, who was born in Peru and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1987.
|
Mike Levine
|
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/feds-target-con-attorney-imposter-allegedly-preying-undocumented/story?id=61660072
|
2019-03-14 22:53:44+00:00
| 1,552,618,424 | 1,567,546,248 |
society
|
immigration
|
2,445 |
abcnews--2019-11-20--The Latest: Activist acquitted of harboring immigrants
| 2019-11-20T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
The Latest: Activist acquitted of harboring immigrants
|
The Latest on the trial of a border humanitarian charged with immigrant harboring (all times local): A jury in Arizona has acquitted an activist on charges he illegally helped two migrant men from Central America evade authorities. Scott Warren was charged with harboring for his role in providing shelter to the men who had crossed the border illegally in January 2018. The trial was the second for Warren, who maintained he was fulfilling his mission as a humanitarian when he provided basic medical care to the men. He allowed them to stay at a camp run by volunteers who rescue migrants in desert. A jury in June deadlocked on charges against him in the first trial. Prosecutors contended Warren knowingly broke the law by allowing the men to stay at the camp. They said Warren gave them directions to help them avoid a Border Patrol checkpoint. A jury is now deliberating charges against an Arizona member of a humanitarian group charged with immigrant harboring. The case against 37-year-old Scott Warren of Ajo, Arizona, has garnered international attention as he faces his second trial for his role in providing shelter to two Central American men who had sneaked into the U.S. from Mexico. Warren says he was helping two injured men in need and always followed the law. Prosecutors say he knowingly broke the law by hiding the men from Border Patrol agents, and that they didn’t have serious injuries. The first trial against Warren ended with a deadlocked jury, resulting in a mistrial. He now faces two counts of harboring. Warren and his supporters say the work of humanitarians is increasingly under attack. Other members of his group have been arrested on trespassing charges for accessing a restricted road to drop off water jugs in the desert. Closing statements were held Wednesday morning. The jury began deliberating in the afternoon. A prosecutor says an activist on trial on charges of harboring immigrants tried to hide two Central American men at a camp in southern Arizona and signaled directions to help them avoid an immigration checkpoint. Prosecutor Nathaniel Walters says Wednesday during closing arguments that Scott Warren’s claim he was “orienting” the men before they left the camp was bogus. Warren contends he was fulfilling his mission as a humanitarian when he helped the immigrants. Warren denied helping hide immigrants or telling them how to avoid authorities. His attorney was scheduled to make closing statements later Wednesday. This is his second trial. His first trial ended in a mistrial after jurors deadlocked on charges. Warren belongs to a group that says it tries to prevent immigrants from dying in the desert.
| null |
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-fate-humanitarian-arizona-jurys-hands-67175607
|
Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:52:12 -0500
| 1,574,290,332 | 1,574,294,824 |
society
|
immigration
|
2,662 |
abcnews--2019-11-26--US judge bars Trump’s health insurance rule for immigrants
| 2019-11-26T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
US judge bars Trump’s health insurance rule for immigrants
|
A U.S. judge in Oregon has granted a preliminary injunction blocking a Trump administration proclamation that would require immigrants to show proof of health insurance to get a visa. U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon said in a written opinion Tuesday that the proclamation could not take effect while a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality makes its way through the courts. Simon issued an emergency restraining order on Nov. 3 to prevent the rule from taking effect after seven U.S. citizens and a nonprofit organization sued, saying the rule would block nearly two-thirds of all prospective legal immigrants. The proclamation signed by President Donald Trump in October applies to people seeking immigrant visas from abroad — not those in the U.S. already.
| null |
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-judge-bars-trumps-health-insurance-rule-immigrants-67332305
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2019 19:03:24 -0500
| 1,574,813,004 | 1,574,813,156 |
society
|
immigration
|
3,118 |
abcnews--2019-12-11--US seeks dismissal of New Mexico's immigration lawsuit
| 2019-12-11T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
US seeks dismissal of New Mexico's immigration lawsuit
|
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- U.S. lawyers want a judge to dismiss claims by New Mexico that immigration officials shirked their duties earlier this year by quickly releasing thousands of mostly Central American migrants into communities after they crossed into the United States. New Mexico claimed in a lawsuit filed in June that the practice left Las Cruces, Deming and other communities to pick up the tab for housing and feeding the asylum-seekers until they moved on to find relatives or other hosts elsewhere in the U.S. In addition to seeking an end to the catch-and-release practice, the state sought reimbursement for humanitarian efforts to temporarily shelter migrants. The state resorted to issuing its own grants to help communities with the costs. U.S. District Judge James Browning heard arguments Wednesday but he noted that it could take a while before he issues a decision on whether the case will be allowed to move forward. He cited an ongoing backlog of federal cases in New Mexico. First-year Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump and his immigration policies, cited a "derogation of duty" when she announced the lawsuit against then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan and top immigration officials. The city of Albuquerque was listed as a co-plaintiff. The complaint resembled a suit filed by San Diego County in April that challenged the cancellation of a federal program that helped migrants with phone calls and other travel logistics as they sought final destinations across the U.S. The quick releases in New Mexico came as the border was inundated with migrants seeking asylum. At times, groups of 300 or more people showed up at remote outposts, including the crossings at Antelope Wells and at Sunland Park, closer to El Paso, Texas. Attorneys for the state and the city told the judge about the hundreds of people who were dropped off in Deming in the middle of summer. “It's not an option to ignore those people,” said Jonathan Guss, the governor's deputy general counsel. He pointed to state responsibilities for ensuring public health and safety for all people within its jurisdiction and argued that the federal government's actions forced New Mexico to step up. Deputy City Attorney Winter Torres said local officials had only 10 to 12 hours of notification before some 300 migrants were released on Easter weekend. She suggested that the federal government was targeting the city because of its immigrant-friendly policies. Federal officials have denied those claims, and attorneys for the government argued Wednesday that New Mexico and the city had no standing to bring the lawsuit because the previous safe release policy was not something that was ever formally adopted through regulations or statute and thus left to the discretion of immigration officials. Assistant U.S. Attorney Manuel Lucero told the judge that had Congress intended every discretionary decision an agency makes to be reviewed, government would grind to a halt and the courts would be flooded by complaints every time someone disagreed with a policy change. While acknowledging that the immigration and asylum system was overwhelmed, Lucero said the federal government never forced the state or city to spend their money on humanitarian efforts. “It's discretionary spending on their part. It's commendable. It really is,” he said, adding that no existing regulations, codes or statutes require the federal government to provide shelter, food or other humanitarian aid to all asylum-seekers and that it did not do so under the previous policy. Such aid, he said, is provided only on a case-by-case basis — for example if a migrant is ill and needs medical care. In May, at the height of immigrant apprehensions the El Paso Sector — which includes New Mexico’s stretch of the border — saw nearly 30,000 families come through. The numbers dropped quickly over the summer in the busiest crossing spots, the result of several policies making it nearly impossible to gain asylum in the U.S. New Mexico's congressional delegation was able to secure $30 million in grants for communities and organizations that aided asylum seekers. The first wave of supplemental funding came in October, but the state said Wednesday that its application for reimbursement from the U.S. government was still pending. Details on the amount of reimbursement being sought were not immediately available.
| null |
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-seeks-dismissal-mexicos-immigration-lawsuit-67663084
|
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:22:04 -0500
| 1,576,117,324 | 1,576,152,425 |
society
|
immigration
|
3,157 |
abcnews--2019-12-13--Challenge to immigration law is tossed on eve of enactment
| 2019-12-13T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
Challenge to immigration law is tossed on eve of enactment
|
ALBANY, N.Y. -- A law that will allow New Yorkers to get driver’s licenses without having to prove they are in the country legally weathered a second court challenge Friday, days before its enactment. A federal district judge ruled against Rensselaer County Clerk Frank Merola, saying he lacked the legal capacity to bring the lawsuit. Merola, a Republican, had argued that the state law conflicts with federal immigration law. Judge Gary Sharpe wrote in his decision that he was not ruling on the legality of the law, but on whether Merola could bring the suit. A federal judge in western New York ruled against a county clerk in Buffalo on similar grounds last month. Starting Monday, license applicants without a valid Social Security number will be able to submit alternative forms of ID that include valid passports and driver’s licenses issued in other countries. Applicants must still get a permit and pass a road test to qualify for a “standard driver’s license.” Merola is one of more than 50 county clerks who run Department of Motor Vehicles offices as agents of the state. Some clerks have said they're frustrated with the rollout of the law and several have sued the state. Merola is among a few clerks who have raised the possibility of not enforcing the law. “I am disappointed, and hopefully, this is only a setback. We will continue to fight to be heard," Merola said in a prepared statement. State Attorney General Letitia James noted that two judges have now dismissed claims from county clerks she called meritless. "We expect all public officials to comply with the law, and, as the state’s attorney and chief law enforcement officer, I will continue to vigorously defend it,” she said in a prepared statement.
| null |
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/challenge-immigration-law-tossed-eve-enactment-67724005
|
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 19:58:27 -0500
| 1,576,285,107 | 1,576,325,142 |
society
|
immigration
|
3,234 |
abcnews--2019-12-16--Immigrants seeking driver's licenses line up across New York
| 2019-12-16T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
Immigrants seeking driver's licenses line up across New York
|
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Bundled in winter jackets, immigrants lined up at some Department of Motor Vehicle offices throughout New York as the state began issuing driver's licenses Monday that don't require applicants to prove they are in the country legally. Hundreds of New Yorkers waited outside motor vehicle agencies in New York City, while several upstate clerks said they saw few applicants. License applicants without a valid Social Security number can now submit multiple alternative forms of ID that includes valid passports and driver’s licenses issued in other countries. State DMV officials said they adjusted staffing levels and updated their reservation system in anticipation of such large crowds Monday. “This is a major step forward for all New Yorkers as we keep building New York to live up to its full potential of equity, opportunity, and justice," said state Sen. Luis Sepúlveda last week. “We also look forward to the significant economic and safety benefits the law will bring to communities across our state." At least one county clerk in upstate New York opposed to the law said he was turning away applicants. Rensselaer County Clerk Frank Merola, one of several clerks who has sued to block New York's law said his office had turned away an applicant who wanted a driver's permit but lacked a social security number. “I was pretty adamant that I was going to have a tough time doing it out of my office," Merola said. “That might have discouraged people coming to my office.” The Republican clerk said his office directed the applicant across the Hudson River to the state-run Department of Motor Vehicles offices in Albany. Meanwhile, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration has said any clerks who do not want to follow state law should resign. “Local officials, including county clerks who run DMV offices, cannot choose which laws they like and which they will disregard,"said Department of Motor Vehicles Spokeswoman Lisa Koumjian. “If a clerk is unwilling to follow State law, he or she should resign their office." New York now accepts documents such as foreign passports, permanent resident cards, foreign driver's licenses and border crossing cards from driver's license applicants. Merola and several other clerks have claimed their staff lack the training and equipment to verify foreign documents and properly comply with the law. Merola said only three out of 17 of his employees have had time to watch a one-hour webinar provided by the DMV this month. Erie County Clerk Michael Kearns, a Democrat who ran on the Republican line, said that his employees took applications from about 10 individuals Monday. He said he directed his employees to refer applications to his office so that he can authenticate and verify them. “We haven't processed any paperwork but we're not turning anyone away,” he said. Cuomo's administration said they have provided county and state DMV staff with devices to authenticate documents, and provided hands-on-training when they installed devices. A spokeswoman said the state DMV also provided two training sessions, training materials and two online webinars. “The law applies to only one license transaction and the DMV is not creating a new license or overhauling the current process," Koumjian said. Immigration advocates have said they're ready to go to court to defend the law. “We are grateful to the state for providing DMV staff and county clerks the training, equipment and resources they need to ensure the smooth implementation of Greenlight NY," New York Immigration Coalition NYIC Executive Director Steve Choi said. Lawmakers in June made New York the 13th state to authorize licenses for drivers without legal immigration status. New Jersey lawmakers passed a similar bill Monday. An estimated 265,000 immigrants without legal documents are expected to get driver’s licenses within three years, more than half of them in New York City, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute. Applicants must still get a permit and pass a road test to qualify for a “standard driver’s license,” which cannot be used for federal purposes like an enhanced driver’s license or Real ID. This story has been corrected to show that the new law doesn't require applicants to prove they are in the country legally, not illegally.
| null |
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/immigrants-seeking-drivers-licenses-line-york-67764323
|
Mon, 16 Dec 2019 18:24:47 -0500
| 1,576,538,687 | 1,576,541,142 |
society
|
immigration
|
3,298 |
abcnews--2019-12-17--Washington state sues over courthouse immigration arrests
| 2019-12-17T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
Washington state sues over courthouse immigration arrests
|
SEATTLE -- Washington state sued the Trump administration Tuesday seeking to stop its practice of arresting people at courthouses for immigration violations, saying it interferes with the state's authority to run its judicial system and endangers public safety. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle says that when Immigration and Customs Enforcement or Customs and Border Protection agents patrol courthouse hallways and parking lots it deters crime victims and witnesses from testifying and interferes with criminal prosecutions. Among the hundreds of people recently arrested at courthouses in Washington were an assault victim, a domestic violence survivor seeking a protection order and a married father of U.S.-citizen children with a pending application for legal permanent residency, Attorney General Bob Ferguson said at a news conference. “Federal immigration officials are arresting people with no criminal history at all. They are arresting people who are paying traffic tickets. They are arresting people who are crime victims,” Ferguson said. “As a result, and not surprisingly at all, individuals are refusing to participate in our justice system.” A similar lawsuit in Massachusetts resulted in a preliminary court order blocking immigration agents from making civil arrests — a decision Ferguson described as a “roadmap” for Washington's case. The Trump administration has appealed that order. Washington's lawsuit escalates tension between state and federal authorities over immigration enforcement. Federal authorities have insisted that state and local “sanctuary” policies limiting cooperation with immigration agents endanger the public by making it harder to deport dangerous criminals. Federal prosecutors in Massachusetts recently charged a judge there with obstructing justice by letting a defendant avoid an immigration arrest by slipping out a back door of the courthouse. In a statement emailed by spokeswoman Tanya Roman on Tuesday, ICE said it "will continue to carry out its mission to uphold public safety and enforce immigration law, and consider carefully whether to refer those who obstruct our lawful enforcement efforts for criminal prosecution.” “It is ironic that elected officials want to see policies in place to keep ICE out of courthouses, while caring little for laws enacted by Congress to keep criminal aliens out of our country,” she said. The Department of Homeland Security for years restricted what types of offenders it would target for immigration arrests, directing agents to focus on those who posed a threat to public safety or national security and to lay off crime victims and witnesses. In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security said only illegal immigrants who pose a threat to public safety or national security, or who were gang members or felons, should be targeted for arrest at courthouses. But President Donald Trump has ordered that immigration laws be fully executed “against all removable aliens.” In 2018, Homeland Security confirmed that it would make civil arrests in courthouses when necessary, and it noted that it could be safer to arrest people in courthouses because they've already been screened for weapons. Since then, officials in Washington and other states have described a dramatic increase in such arrests. Ferguson's lawsuit was accompanied by declarations from 40 people, including judges, prosecutors, lawyers, victim advocates and others who have observed the arrests and the chilling effect they have on immigrants who otherwise might agree to show up in court. The New York and Oregon court systems have adopted rules that attempt to bar ICE from arresting immigrants inside courthouses without a judicial warrant or order. Washington is considering a similar rule. In a letter to the supreme courts of Washington and Oregon last month, U.S. Attorney General William Barr and Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said they had no intention of honoring such policies. “Court rules that would purport to further restrict the lawful operations of federal law enforcement officials only serve to exacerbate sanctuary laws and policies that continue to place our communities at unacceptable risk,” they wrote. “They think their work is more important than ours, and I’m deeply offended by that,” Satterberg said.
| null |
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/washington-sues-feds-courthouse-immigration-arrests-67782557
|
Tue, 17 Dec 2019 18:21:35 -0500
| 1,576,624,895 | 1,576,627,584 |
society
|
immigration
|
3,444 |
abcnews--2019-12-23--US awards immigration detention contracts in California
| 2019-12-23T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
US awards immigration detention contracts in California
|
SAN DIEGO -- The Trump administration awarded billions of dollars in contracts for private companies to operate immigration detention centers in California —- less than two weeks before a new state law takes effect to prohibit them. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill in October to ban contracts for for-profit prisons starting Jan. 1. Supporters hoped the law would force U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to look elsewhere after current contracts expire. A federal website posted long-term awards on Friday worth a combined $6.8 billion for detention facilities in San Diego, Calexico, Adelanto and Bakersfield. The sites will house about 4,000 detainees, with capacity to expand in the future. ICE said the contracts were not subject to the new state law, deflecting criticism that the timing was meant to circumvent it. Paige Hughes, an agency spokeswoman, said ICE believed the new contracts will limit transfers of detainees outside California, where they would be farther from family, friends and legal representatives. “State laws aimed at obstructing federal law enforcement are inappropriate and harmful," Hughes said. Vicky Waters, a spokeswoman for Newsom, said Monday that ICE was trying to get around the law, which she called a historic step to address excessive incarceration, including detention of immigrants and asylum-seekers. “For-profit prisons, including ICE-contracted facilities, run contrary to our values and have no place in California," Waters wrote in an email. “”This effort to circumvent California’s authority and federal procurement rules that safeguard the American taxpayers must be addressed by congressional oversight.” A state Senate analysis of Assembly Bill 32 said the Trump administration would likely sue to block the law, partly by arguing that is is preempted by federal immigration law. The analysis predicted the state would prevail in court. The GEO Group Inc. won two five-year extensions — one to operate the detention center in Adelanto, with capacity for 2,690 beds, and another to run the facility in Bakersfield, with capacity for 1,800 beds. The two contracts are worth more than $3.7 billion, GEO said Monday the contracts would provide more than $200 million in annual revenue and 1,200 jobs. CoreCivic Inc. won an extension worth $2.1 billion to operate an immigration detention center in San Diego, with capacity for 1,994 beds. Management & Training Corp. won a contract for $679 million to operate a facility in Calexico with capacity for 704 beds. California, with its large immigrant populations and border with Mexico, is a major priority for ICE, which has found itself increasingly unwelcome under state laws. As the number of ICE detainees nationwide topped 56,000 earlier this year, the agency held more people in central Louisiana.
| null |
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-awards-immigration-detention-contracts-california-67902707
|
Mon, 23 Dec 2019 18:31:04 -0500
| 1,577,143,864 | 1,577,146,038 |
society
|
immigration
|
3,636 |
abcnews--2019-12-30--Pastor pledges safety for immigrants at Miami Trump event
| 2019-12-30T00:00:00 |
abcnews
|
Pastor pledges safety for immigrants at Miami Trump event
|
MIAMI -- The pastor of a Miami megachurch that will host President Donald Trump at a rally this week is guaranteeing that parishioners who entered the U.S. illegally won't risk deportation by attending. During a Sunday Spanish language service, Pastor Guillermo Maldonado told the audience of hundreds that he's heard people asking how he could bring Trump to the church if those attending include people who lack immigration papers, given the president's hard-line immigration policy. “I ask you: Do you think I would do something where I would endanger my people? I’m not that dumb,” Maldonado told parishioners. The Miami Herald reported Maldonado also made an appeal to some of his congregation who feel apprehensive about attending Trump’s Friday visit to the King Jesus International Ministry church because of his administration's increased immigration raids. “I don’t think the president would do such a thing,” Maldonado said. “Don’t put your race or your nationality over being a Christian. Be mature ... If you want to come, do it for your pastor. That’s a way of supporting me.” The church in West Kendall south of Miami was chosen by Trump to host about 70 Christian pastors during an event billed as an “‘Evangelicals for Trump’ Coalition Launch.” Maldonado asked churchgoers from Venezuela and Cuba to raise their hands, and emphasized his own opposition to communist dictatorships, something Trump has also done at public rallies in South Florida as an appeal to Hispanic voters. The pastor said the church isn't organizing or financing the event, and that anyone seeking to attend the campaign rally had to pre-register at DonaldJTrump.com. On Sunday, Secret Service agents were examining bags before the services, to prepare for the event. Every other church service during the week, except for a New Year’s Eve mass, is being canceled, Maldonado said.
| null |
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pastor-pledges-safety-immigrants-miami-trump-event-67981289
|
Mon, 30 Dec 2019 15:06:07 -0500
| 1,577,736,367 | 1,577,750,735 |
society
|
immigration
|
3,755 |
activistpost--2019-01-14--Underage Child Marriages Featured In A US Senate Report How US Immigration System Encourages Child
| 2019-01-14T00:00:00 |
activistpost
|
Underage Child Marriages Featured In A US Senate Report How U.S. Immigration System Encourages Child Marriages
|
Probably one of the more ‘rabid’ topics in the USA, if not in the world today, is immigration and the apparent ‘infusion’ by immigrants who have a need to establish their former mores, cultures, lifestyles, and even archaic laws anathema to the U.S. legal system, as part of the United States milieu. That ‘debate’ has many U.S. citizens concerned, as in other Western culture countries, especially when it comes to how several of those foreign customs involve children, especially the marriage of extremely young girls—some pre-pubescent—to men, often against their will. However, such practice is not the normal custom of courtship and marriage in the USA, nor in European countries. The above being said, makes me wonder why the U.S. Senate published the 40-page report “How the U.S. Immigration System Encourages Child Marriages” Majority Staff Report of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman dated January 11, 2019. Over the last eleven years (FY2007 to FY2017), USCIS approved 3,595,447 petitions3 for spousal or fiancé entry in to the United States.4 Of those, 8,686 involved a minor.5 Two minors whose petitions were approved were 13 years old6 ; 38 were 14 years old; 269 were 15 years old; 1,768 were 16 years old; and the remaining 6,609 were 17 years old.7 Girls were the younger party in 95 percent of the petitions approved by USCIS.8 The Committee found that USCIS awarded some petitions to people with significant age differences. For example, in 2013, USCIS approved a 71-year-old U.S. citizen’s petition for a 17-year-old spouse in Guatemala;10 in 2011, USCIS approved a 14-year-old U.S. citizen’s petition for a 48-year-old spouse in Jamaica;11 and USCIS approved 149 petitions involving a minor with an adult spouse or fiancé who was more than 40 years old.12 As part of its oversight work, Committee staff spoke with a U.S. citizen and child marriage victim who was forced to marry her first cousin during a family vacation to Pakistan .13 USCIS approved her petition for a spousal immigration benefit for her cousin when she was 13 years old after she returned to the United States. She is just one of the thousands of U.S. women and girls forced into a child marriage involving the U.S. immigration system . Committee Chairman Ron Johnson and former Ranking Member Claire McCaskill sought information from USCIS about child marriages and immigration benefits in September 2017.14 It took USCIS over one year to provide the data in this report. This report explains current U.S. law and presents the data and information the Committee obtained. It also details the weaknesses the Committee found in USCIS’s management and administration of spousal and fiancé immigration petitions that leave minors vulnerable to fraud, child exploitation, trafficking, and forced marriages. The Appendix includes the letter Chairman Johnson and former Ranking Member McCaskill sent to USCIS and the documents USCIS provided to the Committee in response. [CJF emphasis] In I. BACKGROUND ON CHILD MARRIAGES AND THE U.S. IMMIGRATION SYSTEM In 2016, the State Department, in concert with other agencies, published the United States Global Strategy to Empower Adolescent Girls, which established a goal to “reduce the risk of child, early, and forced marriage (CEFM).”17 It declared that child, early, and forced marriages “have devastating repercussions for a girl’s life,” and foster “conditions that enable or exacerbate violence and insecurity, including domestic violence.”18 The policy defined a forced marriage as “. . . a marriage that takes place without the consent of one or both people in the marriage.” 19 The strategy reported that “[t]here are nearly 700 million women alive today who were married as children, and 15 million more are married each year.” 20 The State Department argued that “forced marriage [is] a human rights abuse and, in the case of minors, a form of child abuse.” [CJF emphasis] The chart on page 17 lists Table 7: Top Birth Country for Spousal and Fiancé Petition Beneficiaries Involving Minors as a Percentage of Total, FY2007-FY2017.72 Section IV. WEAKNESSES IN USCIS’S MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF SPOUSAL AND FIANCÉ IMMIGRATION PETITIONS discusses the problems within SPOUSAL AND FIANCÉ IMMIGRATION PETITIONS. Here are the Report’s V. Conclusions: The United States advocates for preventing and reducing the risks of child marriages occurring around the world, but data provided to the Committee reveal that the U.S. government approved thousands of petitions and visas for spousal or fiancé immigration benefits for marriages involving minors from FY2007 to FY2017. During this period, 4,749 minors who entered the country using spousal or fiancé visas obtained green cards . If we are truly serious about upholding stated U.S. policy to prevent child marriages and protect children from potential abuse and harm, Congress must reform the INA to prevent individuals from obtaining immigration benefits that facilitate child marriages. [CJF emphasis] The balance of the Report contains information in the form of letters and charts used in producing the Report.
|
Activist Post
|
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/01/underage-child-marriages-featured-in-a-us-senate-report-how-u-s-immigration-system-encourages-child-marriages.html
|
2019-01-14 16:30:52+00:00
| 1,547,501,452 | 1,567,552,476 |
society
|
immigration
|
3,918 |
activistpost--2019-01-31--Whats The Illegal Immigration Problem All About Anyways
| 2019-01-31T00:00:00 |
activistpost
|
What’s The Illegal Immigration Problem All About, Anyways?
|
First and foremost, I salute all legal immigrants who come to the United States to better their lives and to enrich our beloved country by sharing their rich cultures. My grandparents came from Eastern European countries on steamships arriving at, and processing through, Ellis Island. That was the then-legal process of the time where all arrivals were subject to health exams, as Ellis Island had large healthcare facilities for those who had arrived either with chronic illnesses or contracted an infectious illness on the stressful sea voyage to the USA. Back then, in the early 20th century, things were very much different regarding the immigration situation. Notably, there were no organized socialist groups promoting recent “color revolutions” by inciting and financing immigrants to enter countries illegally anywhere: Foreign countries or the USA. The “original” and early color revolutions are described in Wikipedia. However, the more recent color revolutions seem to have the hallmarks of being financed by members of the New World Order agenda, e.g., George Soros and his Open Society Foundations. Leaving aside the unconvincing statement by Popović ’s CANVAS that half their funds come from Dinovic’s selfless generosity from his fabulous success as telecom CEO in Serbia, that leaves the other roughly 50% of CANVAS funds unaccounted for, as Popović declines to reveal the sources beyond claiming they are all private and non-government. Of course the Washington NGO is legally private though its funds mainly come from USAID. Of course the Soros Open Society Foundations are private. Could these be some of the private patrons of his CANVAS? We don’t know as he refuses to disclose in any legally auditable way. Popović’s CANVAS claims to have trained “pro-democracy activists” from more than 50 countries, including Ukraine, Georgia, Zimbabwe, Burma (actually the legal name since independence from the British is Myanmar but Washington insists on the colonial name), Ukraine, Georgia, Eritrea, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Popović ’s CANVAS was involved as well in unsuccessful attempts to start Color Revolution regime change against Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and the opposition in the failed 2009 Iran Green Revolution. Every one of those countries happen to also be targets for Washington regime-change of governments who refuse to toe the Washington line on key foreign policy issues, or which contain vital raw materials such as oil, natural gas or strategic minerals. The above positions the groundwork for understanding the current immigration problems occurring in most regions of the globe, especially in the European Union where rape cultures are overwhelming nationalists, and in the United States where all types of social issues result, e.g., from immigrant caravans traveling thousands of miles to the southern U.S. border they cross illegally with no vetting as to health status, drug dealing, or possible national security vetting, and/or threats to the actual illegal voting by illegal immigrants in several states: California DMV admits that non-citizens are registered to vote https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/8/non-citizens-illegally-registered-vote-california-/ Texas Secretary of State’s possible voter fraud statistics that Trump touted still being confirmed https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-texas-voter-fraud-trump-20190129-story.html [Jan. 29, 2019: as many as 95,000 voters!] There are questions about voter fraud in Arizona https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2018/11/15/az-gop-to-conduct-audit-of-2018-general-election/ Illegal voting definitely is not within the rights of non-citizens in the USA; it’s breaking the law. “Undocumented Immigrant” Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law” https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/undocumented-immigrant-made-term-ignores-the-law “Alien”—rather than “immigrant”—is the correct legal term, since “alien” is defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101 (a)(3) as “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” [1] If all the above is considered “breaking the law,” then how come many Leftists, Liberals and NeoDemocrats are extremely comfortable about, and encourage, breaking the law? Isn’t the USA supposed to be a “country of laws”? Now, here’s something to add to all the above in trying to present a cogent discussion about why the USA needs to enforce legal immigration. An interesting article appeared in the Washington Examiner dated December 3, 2018, titled “Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households” wherein the economics of non-citizens, or “illegal aliens” as the Supreme Court legally identifies them, has definite impact upon U.S. fiscal matters. Here are some examples, i.e., the Welfare Programs set up to help U.S. citizens that now are being tapped into in greater numbers by “non-citizens” or those legally-identified as “illegal aliens.” According to 2014 census statistical analyses, this chart was produced. Please take the time to study the numbers, which are given in percentages, rather than actual U.S. dollar values. Key statistics to consider: Non-Citizen Households dominate all categories – Any Welfare, Cash, Food and Medicaid – except Housing! The Center for Immigration Studies wrote this in their report:
|
Activist Post
|
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/01/whats-the-illegal-immigration-problem-all-about-anyways.html
|
2019-01-31 12:00:11+00:00
| 1,548,954,011 | 1,567,550,050 |
society
|
immigration
|
4,347 |
activistpost--2019-03-30--Is There An Overwhelming But Understated Fiscal Burden For States Caused By Illegal Immigration
| 2019-03-30T00:00:00 |
activistpost
|
Is There An Overwhelming, But Understated, “Fiscal Burden” For States Caused By Illegal Immigration?
|
Most citizens really don’t know how much illegal immigration actually costs. What’s free for one person obviously has to be paid for by someone else, i.e., taxpayers! However, FAIRUS.org www.FAIRUS.org did its homework regarding what illegal immigration costs each state; what you learn from their reports probably will shock you. Here’s one report: The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers [September 2017]. Here’s the pdf for that report https://fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/Fiscal-Burden-of-Illegal-Immigration-2017.pdf The fiscal reality of illegal immigration hits home for every U.S. state. Talk about ‘fiat money’! Some states eventually may go broke trying to subsidize those who seek greener pastures in the USA while running up billions of dollars [deficits?] trying to subsidize political correctness! How cost effective is that? Below are full webpage reports of how much illegal immigration costs each U.S. state. After you check out the state where you live, take a look at the billion-dollar-burden states; there are 14 such states! These states have billion dollar burdens: California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. The question readers should be asking when reading the information below is, “How come on the first round of checking the links below Catherine got the prompt “Protected by Outlook; can’t open,” while “You’ve reached this page in error” pops up for states on her second go-round of checking: Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, and Oklahoma so their webpages can’t be opened?” My guestimate is Internet censorship may be working overtime? Algorithms united! Alabama http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Alabama2015.pdf Alaska http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Alaska2014.pdf Arizona You’ve reached this page in error. Arkansas http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Arkansas2014.pdf California http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/California2014.pdf Colorado http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Colorado2013.pdf Connecticut http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Connecticut2014.pdf Delaware http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Delaware2015.pdf District of Columbia http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/DC2015.pdf Florida http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Florida2014.pdf Georgia http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Georgia2014-FAIRCostStudy.pdf Hawaii Nothing appears. Idaho http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Idaho2015.pdf Illinois http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Illinois2014.pdf Indiana http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Indiana2015.pdf Iowa http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Iowa2014.pdf Kansas http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Kansas2013.pdf Kentucky http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Kentucky2014.pdf Louisiana http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Louisiana2014.pdf Maine You’ve reached this page in error. Maryland http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Maryland2014.pdf Massachusetts http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Massachusetts2014.pdf Michigan http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Michigan2014.pdf Minnesota http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Minnesota2015.pdf Mississippi http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Mississippi2014.pdf Missouri http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Missouri2015.pdf Montana http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Montana2015.pdf Nebraska You’ve reached this page in error. Nevada Nothing appears New Hampshire http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/NewHampshire2014.pdf New Jersey http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/NewJersey2014.pdf New Mexico http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/NewMexico2013.pdf New York You’ve reached this page in error. North Carolina http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/NorthCarolina2014.pdf North Dakota http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/NorthDakota2013.pdf Ohio http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Ohio2014.pdf Oklahoma You’ve reached this page in error. Oregon http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Oregon2014.pdf Pennsylvania http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Pennsylvania2014.pdf Rhode Island http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/RhodeIsland2015.pdf South Carolina http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/SouthCarolina2015.pdf South Dakota http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/SouthDakota2015.pdf Tennessee http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Tennessee2015.pdf Texas http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Texas2014.pdf Utah http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Utah2015.pdf Vermont http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Vermont2015.pdf Virginia http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Virginia2014.pdf Washington http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Washington2015.pdf West Virginia http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/WestVirginia2015.pdf Wisconsin http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Wisconsin2013.pdf Wyoming http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Wyoming2014.pdf Questions: How much more fiscal responsibility could a $5 billion border wall provide each state and its taxpayers? Heck! Illegal immigration costs California state taxpayers $25.3 billion in state and local expenses! How about Texas’s $12.1 billion? How about Maryland’s and Virginia’s each $1.9 billion? What is it we’re not getting about Socialism and the taxes to pay for it, something the NeoDemocrats seemingly seek to increase with their New Green Deal?
|
Activist Post
|
https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/is-there-an-overwhelming-but-understated-fiscal-burden-for-states-caused-by-illegal-immigration.html
|
2019-03-30 15:11:16+00:00
| 1,553,973,076 | 1,567,544,626 |
society
|
immigration
|
6,636 |
adobochronicles--2019-06-24--Hong Kong Immigration Says Del Rosario Was Holding Fake Chinese Passport
| 2019-06-24T00:00:00 |
adobochronicles
|
Hong Kong Immigration Says Del Rosario Was Holding Fake Chinese Passport
|
HONG KONG, China (The Adobo Chronicles, Hong Kong Bureau) – Now it can be told. Hong Kong’s Immigration just revealed the real reason ex-Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Del Rosario was denied entry and deported back to the Philippines. He presented a fake Chinese passport, not a Philippine diplomatic passport as he earlier claimed. ”It was apparent Del Rosario wanted to evade scrutiny by Immigration authorities after he and ex-Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales filed a complaint before the International Criminal Court against Chinese President Xi Jinping for alleged crimes against humanity,” a Chinese official told The Adobo Chronicles.
|
Pol Pinoy
|
https://adobochronicles.com/2019/06/23/hong-kong-immigration-says-del-rosario-was-holding-fake-chinese-passport/
|
2019-06-24 00:07:17+00:00
| 1,561,349,237 | 1,567,538,279 |
society
|
immigration
|
6,815 |
adobochronicles--2019-12-08--Tens Of Thousands Of Undocumented Filipino Immigrants In U.S. Apply For Politcal Asylum
| 2019-12-08T00:00:00 |
adobochronicles
|
Tens Of Thousands Of Undocumented Filipino Immigrants In U.S. Apply For Politcal Asylum
|
SAN FRANCISCO, California (The Adobo Chronicles, San Francisco Bureau) – Encouraged by a recent Immigration Court decision granting political asylum to a Filipino couple who arrived in the U.S. in 2000 to go sight-seeing, tens of thousands of Filipino TNTs (Tago Ng Tago — hiding from Immigrantion authorities), have filed asylum petitions with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrtion Services (USCIS), The couple claimed that returning to the Phlippines will subject them to political persecution by the Duterte Administration which they are critical of. The Adobo Chronicles visited the USCIS offices on Samsome Street in San Francsco to verify the reports. Immigration officials confirmed that today alone, they have receivecd 66,666 applicants for political asylum by Filipinos who have pending deportation orders. We wish the Filipinos the best of luck in their petitions. After all, there has been a precedent. The odds of success are great!
|
Pol Pinoy
|
https://adobochronicles.com/2019/12/08/tens-of-thousands-of-undocumented-filipino-immigrants-in-u-s-apply-for-politcal-asylum/
|
Sun, 08 Dec 2019 13:04:05 +0000
| 1,575,828,245 | 1,575,849,759 |
society
|
immigration
|
48,789 |
bigleaguepolitics--2019-12-19--Joe Biden Wants Amnesty for All Illegal Aliens and Wants to Keep Immigrants on Welfare in America
| 2019-12-19T00:00:00 |
bigleaguepolitics
|
Joe Biden Wants Amnesty for All Illegal Aliens and Wants to Keep Immigrants on Welfare in America
|
John Binder of Breitbart News reported that former Vice President Joe Biden wants to amnesty all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens residing in America, letting borders crossers run loose into the American interior, and relaunching welfare-dependent legal immigration that would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. In it, Biden promises to provide amnesty to all illegal aliens living in the U.S. On top of that, Biden wants reverse of President Trump’s public charge reforms, by allowing legal immigrants to permanently resettle in the country despite being a public burden on taxpayers. Trending: MUST WATCH: Woman Loses Her Mind, Violently Attacks Reporter Over Impeachment “Biden will immediately begin working with Congress to modernize our system, with a priority on keeping families together by providing a roadmap to citizenship for nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants,” the plan’s outline detailed. take our poll - story continues below In addition to mass amnesty, the Binder notes that the plan pledges to do the following: • Releasing all border crossers into the U.S. interior • Restarting welfare-dependent legal immigration to the U.S. • Ending the National Emergency Declaration at the southern border • Cracking down on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents Biden’s immigration plan would be a burden for American taxpayers. Take for example, Biden’s DACA amnesty plan. It would leave U.S. taxpayers on the hook for $26 billion given that one in five DACA illegal aliens would end up on food stamps, and at least one in seven would turn to Medicaid, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This cost would be tacked on to the billions that Americans would have to shoulder thanks to Biden’s restoration of welfare-dependent legal immigration. A few months ago, Trump announced that he would phase out the resettlement of millions of legal immigrants who were determined to be public charges. Biden, however, has other plans in mind, stating: Allowing immigration officials to make an individual’s ability to receive a visa or gain permanent residency contingent on their use of government services such as SNAP benefits or Medicaid, their household income, and other discriminatory criteria undermines America’s character as land of opportunity that is open and welcoming to all, not just the wealthy. Although not as radically open borders as some of his 2020 presidential aspirants in the Democrat Party, Biden represents the Democrat’s gradual radicalization on the issue of open borders. For anyone who wants to see rational policies on immigration, the Democrat Party is not an option in the 2020 elections.
|
Jose Nino
|
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/joe-biden-wants-amnesty-for-all-illegal-aliens-and-wants-to-keep-immigrants-on-welfare-in-america/
|
Thu, 19 Dec 2019 21:01:10 +0000
| 1,576,807,270 | 1,576,817,095 |
society
|
immigration
|
53,266 |
birminghammail--2019-01-04--Indian restaurant which fed the Home Secretary employed illegal immigrants
| 2019-01-04T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Indian restaurant which fed the Home Secretary employed illegal immigrants
|
A 'popular' Indian restaurant which counts the Home Secretary Sajid Javid among its high profile customers employed illegal immigrants, it has been revealed. Jilabi, in Sheldon, this week (Thursday, January 3) had its alcohol licence stripped permanently by Birmingham City Council in a landmark immigration case for the authority. A licensing sub-committee heard that police, alongside Home Office and immigration officials, swooped on the premises on Coventry Road around 8pm on November 23 following a tip-off. Five men tried to run out of the back door where awaiting police officers ushered them back inside the restaurant. The restaurant was nominated as one of best Indian restaurants in Birmingham according to the English Curry Awards 2017. Three men, all from Bangladesh, were ultimately arrested, the longest offender having been an illegal immigrant since 2010. Inspectors were later told up to ten further men had removed their staff clothing and blended in with customers to avoid detection, although investigators could not confirm the allegations. Police also found that CCTV was not installed, in breach of the restaurant's licence, and that staff training was not up to standard. All three immigrants have since been returned or are due to be returned to their home country. Addressing the committee PC Abdool Rohomon, West Midlands Police licensing officer, said: "This is not about how well they are run, how good the curry is and how popular they are. "It is a very popular place there are pictures of the Home Secretary having been there, I'm sure he'd love that now." He added: "You instil upon them trust and they have to comply. The trust has totally been eroded by their actions." The council took an interim step to suspend the licence on December 7 prior to today's expedited review. Around a dozen customers had wrote to the authority in support of the restaurant calling for the sanction to be lifted. One claimed that Home Secretary Sajid Javid was a regular. The MP for Bromsgrove was photographed at Jilabi in August and the venue even subsequently renamed its Railway Lamb Curry to Sajid's Railway Lamb in honour of the visit according to a post on its Facebook page. Other high profile customers have also frequented the venue in recent months. A Facebook post in October pictured Midsomer Murders actor Jason Hughes saying he had joined the 'Jilabi Club of fame' while another stated Watford FC captain - and Birmingham City fan - Troy Deeney was a weekly regular. Jilabi opened in 2002 and expanded into the former Chinese restaurant next door in 2014. The fact that they had two licences, one for Jilabi and another for Delicious Buffet, was another thorny issue with police who argued they had been effectively operating as one business. Abdul Rouf, one of the joint licence holders at the premises, claimed two of the immigrants had started a trial period the day before the police raid and that he had delegated responsibility for checking their paperwork because he had taken a day off at short notice. He admitted that the third man had been there around two weeks and they had only seen his driving licence. Mr Rouf pointed out that since the inspection he had hired an administrator to help with checks and paperwork, installed CCTV and updated staff training. He said: "I apologise profusely. I am sorry for having to bring everybody here. "I'm responsible for everything that went on and going forward I have taken on board our mistakes. They happened inadvertently and I want to reassure that nothing of this nature or any other mishap will occur under my watch." Mr Rouf confirmed he would have to lay off a number of staff due to the licence revocation - the strongest sanction available to the council. He added: "I have let myself down, my customers down and the environment around me down."
|
Carl Jackson
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/indian-restaurant-hired-illegal-immigrants-15628849
|
2019-01-04 10:50:09+00:00
| 1,546,617,009 | 1,567,553,889 |
society
|
immigration
|
55,841 |
birminghammail--2019-02-01--Immigrant project in Walsall earns seal of approval from minister
| 2019-02-01T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Immigrant project in Walsall earns seal of approval from minister
|
A Walsall project to help immigrants integrate into society and bring communities together has earned Government praise. Faith Minister Nick Bourne visited the town for the launch of the Integration Strategy and to see first hand how Walsall projects had transformed the lives of people who have now settled in the area. Lord Bourne visited Green Lane Baptist Church and learned about education and training initiatives that have promoted cohesion and increased personal development. He met members of a variety of courses including the Mend It sewing group and learners on the church's English as a second language (ESOL) course who have gone on to set up their own businesses or are going into higher education. Walsall was one of five places in England - along with Bradford, Blackburn, Peterborough and Waltham Forest - selected in 2018 by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to run long-term projects as part of a national integration strategy. And Lord Bourne told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that he was impressed with the work being carried out so far. He said: "It has been a fantastic visit to Walsall. There is lots of enthusiasm and clearly people are making great strides in learning the English language under great supervision through the ESOL scheme which we are keen to support. "If you don't speak the language in England today then it is a great barrier. You are isolated, you don't get a job, you are not able to go to the local clinic or schools. "I think Walsall is doing really well and we are proud to partner. Walsall For All is a great integration project and while there are challenges, Walsall has been very impressive in bringing communities and faiths together and harnessing employment opportunities. "There are things to learn from what Walsall is doing that we can take around the country and that is very much the aim of the whole scheme. I'm very heartened by the work being done here." He was introduced to the groups at the church by project manager Kayon Blake, who moved to England from Jamaica in 2007 with her husband who is in the Royal Navy. She said she encountered language barriers when she first moved to the area and that left her feeling isolated. The mother-of-two was told about Green Lane Baptist Church and got involved before progressing into her current role, in which she supports learners who attend. She said: "The people who come here are wonderful and I'm very proud of them. One of the English students read a poem out to Lord Bourne and all the visitors which is incredible. "I like to encourage them and get them doing things that they thought they could not do and it helps break all the stereotypes of immigrants." Councillor Garry Perry, portfolio holder for communities said: “The launch of ‘Walsall for All’ offers an opportunity for the people of Walsall to come together, to be bold and to make a step change in the integration agenda. "We were chosen because of our history of positive work in this field and our desire to try new things to bring people and communities together.”
|
Gurdip Thandi
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/immigrant-project-walsall-earns-seal-15766661
|
2019-02-01 15:55:13+00:00
| 1,549,054,513 | 1,567,549,912 |
society
|
immigration
|
57,330 |
birminghammail--2019-02-22--Suspected illegal immigrant family with 18-month-old toddler arrested at M6 services
| 2019-02-22T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Suspected illegal immigrant family with 18-month-old toddler arrested at M6 services
|
A suspected family of illegal immigrants, including a toddler, have been arrested at a service station on the M6. Motorway police detained three people on suspicion of entering the country illegally on Thursday night (Feb 21). The family, including an 18-month-old, were spotted at Hilton Park Services at junction 10a in Wolverhampton. Officers said they were transporting the 'exhausted' family and their child to a safe place following the arrest. CMPG shared an image of their marked police cars at the services just off the M6. Alongside it, they tweeted: "Three persons suspected of illegal entry to the U.K. have been arrested at Hilton Park Services. "With the assistance of local @StaffsSpecials our #CMPGspecials are transporting this exhausted family, including 18month old child, to a place of safety. SafeGuarding SC."
|
Stephanie Balloo
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/suspected-illegal-immigrant-family-18-15869390
|
2019-02-22 08:44:07+00:00
| 1,550,843,047 | 1,567,547,623 |
society
|
immigration
|
63,322 |
birminghammail--2019-06-20--Five men arrested following illegal immigration raid in Sparkhill
| 2019-06-20T00:00:00 |
birminghammail
|
Five men arrested following illegal immigration raid in Sparkhill
|
Five men have been arrested following an immigration raid in Sparkhill. West Midlands Police and other agencies swooped on an address in Pentos Drive just after 8am on Thursday (June 20). Four Pakistani nationals and one Afghan national were arrested on suspicion of immigration offences and were handed over to the Home Office. The Home Office said three are being detained prior to removal, one male's age is being assessed and a fifth has been released on bail while his case is progressing. A Home Office spokeswoman said: “Immigration Enforcement officers supported an intelligence-led West Midlands police operation this morning (Thursday, 20 June) at Pentos Drive, Sparkhill. “Following checks, five males were arrested for immigration offences. These included four Pakistan nationals and one Afghan national. “Three of the men were detained pending removal from the UK and a fourth was released on immigration bail whilst his case is progressed. “A fifth male was passed into the care of Social Services to be fully age assessed.” A West Midlands Police spokeswoman said: “Police conducted a planned visit to Pentos Drive in the Sparkhill area of Birmingham just after 8am this morning (Thursday 20 June) following information received relating to suspected illegal immigrants. “Five people have been arrested on suspicion of immigration offences and will be dealt with by the Home Office.” Springfield Neighbourhood Police Team tweeted: “@SpringfieldWMP team in company of @MoseleyHeathWMP and partner agencies arrested five males for miscellaneous offences in Pentos Drive, Sparkhill this morning. “If you know anything then contact us or report via @CrimestoppersWM.”
|
[email protected] ( birminghammail.co.uk)
|
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/five-men-arrested-following-illegal-16460976
|
2019-06-20 16:21:07+00:00
| 1,561,062,067 | 1,567,538,513 |
society
|
immigration
|
70,138 |
bonginoreport--2019-12-22--Pete Buttigieg Releases Immigration Plan Which Reduces Deportations, Promises Path to Citizenship
| 2019-12-22T00:00:00 |
bonginoreport
|
Pete Buttigieg Releases Immigration Plan Which Reduces Deportations, Promises Path to Citizenship
|
Democratic presidential hopeful Mayor of South Bend, Indiana Pete Buttigieg participates of the sixth Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential campaign season co-hosted by PBS NewsHour & Politico at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California on December 19, 2019. Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg unveiled his immigration plan on Sunday, including a path to citizenship for the country's 11 million undocumented immigrants. "Our policies should acknowledge that immigrants are not outsiders," Buttigieg wrote in the plan. The mayor of South Bend, Ind., released the plan as the Democratic presidential primary heats up. On Thursday, Buttigieg came under fire from all sides during the sixth debate of the race, hosted in Los Angeles. Buttigieg is in fourth place in national surveys, but recently surged in the early caucus and primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, where polls put him in first place and second place, respectively. His support to date has been weakest among voters of color. Buttigieg said at the debate that families separated by the Trump administration's immigration policies should have a "fast track to citizenship because what the United States did under this president to them was wrong." Similarly, the plan released on Sunday focuses on "family unity." It also notes the potential benefits to the economy that could come from revamping the immigration system. It calls for a reversal of a number of Trump administration policies — including a halt in border wall construction — and puts an emphasis on foreign affairs, specifically addressing "root causes" for why some immigrants flee their homes and countries. The agenda builds on Buttigieg's previously released plans, including his "Douglass Plan" for black America and a Latino-focused proposal released earlier this month. On his first day in office, Buttigieg wrote, "we will reverse this administration's cruel and counterproductive immigration actions that take infants out of their mothers' arms, argue against children having toothpaste or soap, deport veterans, break up families, and sweep up workers in raids while leaving exploitative employers unpunished." "But we will do more than simply end these outrages," he wrote. In addition to the path to citizenship, which Buttigieg pledged to pursue in his first 100 days in office, the agenda includes the following proposals, among others: • A National Office of New Americans to coordinate federal, state and local efforts promoting immigrant and refugee "integration and inclusion." • A new review system for employment-based visas, to set allotment every other year based on "labor market needs, engagement with immigrant and other stakeholders, and analysis of domestic and global trends." • Acceleration of family reunification by increasing the number of family visas that are issued and ending certain three-year and 10-year bars on reentering the U.S. that are sometimes triggered via the application process for family green cards, which can require leaving the country. • Stop construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall, and invest in "technology-driven border solutions." • Offering 'deferred action' from immigration enforcement to those who have lived in the U.S. for years and to vulnerable populations and those with strong ties to the community • Pursuing civil rights reforms, such as supporting the right to counsel for those facing deportation, making the immigration court system independent and reviewing the Trump administration's deportation decisions. • Reinstating aid to Central America that the Trump administration suspended "Most Americans welcome refugees, and they abhor family separation," the plan reads. "Yet Congress has failed to act. Since the last comprehensive reform, decades ago, the population of undocumented immigrants has stabilized at nearly 11 million people." Buttigieg wrote that the plan will "foster belonging for all Americans" and is "also good for our economy." "In his first 100 days, Pete will push for legislation that provides a mechanism to gain legal status and ultimately citizenship, including for people with temporary protections — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Temporary Protected Status (TPS), Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), and withholding of removal," the plan reads. Congress has struggled for years to tackle immigration, frustrating successive presidents. Former Vice President Joe Biden, as well as Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, released their immigration plans earlier this year.
|
Matt Palumbo
|
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/20/pete-buttigieg-releases-his-immigration-plan-with-path-to-citizenship.html
|
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:11:22 +0000
| 1,577,034,682 | 1,577,018,611 |
society
|
immigration
|
70,933 |
breitbart--2019-01-05--Pelosi Comprehensive Immigration Reform is the Best Way Forward Wall an Immorality
| 2019-01-05T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Pelosi: Comprehensive Immigration Reform is the Best Way Forward, Wall 'an Immorality'
|
During a town hall with MSNBC on Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) expressed support for comprehensive immigration reform that would “secure our borders, legalize the people who are here so that they can participate fully,” and stated that a border wall “is an immorality.” Pelosi stated that the best approach for the House “is comprehensive immigration reform, where we address the whole package of reforms.” She later added, “[W]e’ve been through this, secure our borders, legalize the people who are here so that they can participate fully, do so in a way that energizes America, which has always been the case with newcomers coming. And I emphasize that secure our borders. Because that’s a responsibility, to protect and defend our country. The president would not — the inference that you draw from the wall is that’s the only way to do that. That actually is an immorality.”
|
Ian Hanchett
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/xT-I_EnvYyk/
|
2019-01-05 04:27:58+00:00
| 1,546,680,478 | 1,567,553,787 |
society
|
immigration
|
70,954 |
breitbart--2019-01-11--Exclusive Angel Mom Mendoza Slap in Our Face to Call Illegal Immigration Manufactured Crisis
| 2019-01-11T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Exclusive– Angel Mom Mendoza: 'Slap in Our Face' to Call Illegal Immigration 'Manufactured Crisis'
|
Angel Mom Mendoza’s son, 32-year-old police officer Brandon Mendoza, was killed by a drunk illegal alien who was driving the wrong way down a highway in Mesa, Arizona. During an exclusive interview with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Daily, Mendoza said the claim that illegal immigration and the southern border is a “manufactured crisis” — first used by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — is a “slap” in the face to Angel Families, those who have lost loved ones to illegal immigration. You cannot deport an illegal alien criminal across the border and not think that they’re going to come back when all they’ve been given is a slap on the hand and they’ve been given everything for free while they live here … and politicians that they know, back them up and are fighting for them. They’re not fighting for Americans. They’re fighting for the illegal criminals and for people to come here without following our immigration laws. That’s why I really feel that this is such a treasonous act that politicians are committing against our fellow Americans. [Emphasis added] To listen to Morning Joe yesterday … say “How stupid are these Americans who believe [Trump]?” How stupid are you, Joe, and how stupid is everyone on CNN who actually has any of their guests or anybody who actually has the audacity to say this is a manufactured crisis. You will never know how hurtful that is to every one of us Angel Families who have been fighting this. It’s basically a slap in our face and a kick to our loved ones’ graves. A manufactured crisis — it’s unbelievable they can even come up with these words. [Emphasis added] Mendoza said she is concerned that Americans who support national sovereignty and controlled immigration are being outfought by open borders advocates. “I feel like the one world government, open borders people are pushing much harder than Americans who want to keep our country sovereign because the people who want to keep our country sovereign don’t feel what I’m feeling … that’s very sad to me,” Mendoza said. Currently, the federal government has remained partially shut down as House Democrats block any funding for physical barriers at the U.S.-Mexico border. A handful of Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have crafted a plan to give amnesty to illegal aliens. President Donald Trump has said he is reviewing a plan to deem the border and illegal immigration a national emergency in order to fund a wall along the southern border. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
|
John Binder
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/s6iVg3KHR84/
|
2019-01-11 01:20:10+00:00
| 1,547,187,610 | 1,567,552,872 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,065 |
breitbart--2019-02-14--Trumps Hint to Increase Legal Immigration Automation Dooms American Workers
| 2019-02-14T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Trump's Hint to Increase Legal Immigration, Automation Dooms American Workers
|
This week, Trump reiterated for the third time in a few weeks that he believes the U.S. should be increasing already historic levels of legal immigration — where more than 1.2 million legal immigrants are admitted every year at the expense of American taxpayers who are forced to subsidize the scheme through depressed wages and fewer job prospects. Trump has suggested that the country does not have enough Americans to fill high-paying jobs in sectors like the automotive industry. Nonetheless, Bureau of Labor Statistics data tell a different story, one that is nowhere near a so-called “labor shortage,” as the business lobby has continued to falsely claim. There are at least 13 million working-age Americans who are either unemployed, not in the labor force but want a job, or who are working part-time jobs but want a good-paying full-time job. Immigration Reform Law Insititute (IRLI) Executive Director Dale Wilcox told Breitbart News that increasing legal immigration levels would subject those 13 million Americans to more foreign competition against mostly low-skilled workers. Wilcox said: An increase of already booming legal immigration levels would come along with impending doom for American workers in the form of job automation. Research conducted by the Brookings think tank reveals that about a third of the U.S. workforce could be replaced by automation by 2030. Those most impacted by automation would be America’s working class in food service jobs, production jobs, transportation, and the construction industry. Americans without a high school degree, with only a high school degree, and with some college education are the most likely to suffer if automation is not limited in the U.S. economy. Across the country, unregulated automation threatens mostly American communities that are working and middle class, especially those in states like Alabama, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Kentucky. For example, a detailed interactive map by Recode reveals that in Alabama, more than half of the state’s counties could have major automation replacement of American workers. In counties like Clarke County, Jackson County, and Barbour County, automation could replace more than 50 percent of the area’s U.S. workers or some of the job tasks that they currently do. In the northwest region of Ohio, automation threatens to eliminate more than half of all U.S. jobs or job tasks in every county. Americans are vastly opposed to being replaced by job automation. Economic libertarians have routinely touted their support for job automation, though such a replacement of American workers is extremely unpopular. About 85 percent of Americans said they support the federal government putting restrictions on the types of jobs that employers can automate, like dirty and dangerous jobs, supporting an economic nationalist agenda when it comes to the issue, Pew Research polling has found. Nearly 60 percent of Americans said the federal government should place limits on the number of jobs in which a business can replace a U.S. worker with a machine. About 70 percent of the country’s working class, those with or without a high school degree, agree that the mass displacement of American workers through automation should be stopped with regulation by the federal government. Those benefitting from increased legal immigration levels and massive job automation are corporate executives, Wall Street, real estate investors, big business, and multinational conglomerates that would enjoy a flooded labor market with reduced wages, more workers, fewer labor costs, added residents who need housing, and additional consumers to buy their products. The mass importation of legal immigrants — mostly due to President George H.W. Bush’s Immigration Act of 1990, which expanded legal immigration levels — diminishes job opportunities for the roughly four million young American graduates who enter the workforce every year wanting good-paying jobs. In the last decade alone, the U.S. admitted ten million legal immigrants, forcing American workers to compete against a growing population of low-wage foreign workers. Meanwhile, if legal immigration continues, there will be 69 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S. by 2060. This would represent an unprecedented electoral gain for the Left, as Democrats win about 90 percent of congressional districts where the foreign-born population exceeds the national average. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
|
John Binder
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/I7dSyZ6-ARo/
|
2019-02-14 03:37:43+00:00
| 1,550,133,463 | 1,567,548,489 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,081 |
breitbart--2019-02-17--Limbaugh Immigration Is an Emergency
| 2019-02-17T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Limbaugh: Immigration Is an Emergency --- Our 'Culture' at Risk from 'Parade of Illegal People Who Are Uneducated'
|
On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” nationally syndicated conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said President Donald Trump was right to declare a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border to build a wall. Limbaugh, “We have an emergency. This is an invasion. The very existence and definition of American culture, American society, the rule of law. Why does nobody talk about the fact that millions and millions and millions of people are breaking the law coming here illegally and that the Democrat Party wants that to happen?” He added, “It is undeniable that we have a major immigration problem and a political party that needs a permanent underclass of voters that wants that parade of illegal people who are uneducated, don’t even speak the language, they want them here. It is a crisis.”
|
Pam Key
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/kEAoBMvBX6Y/
|
2019-02-17 16:01:21+00:00
| 1,550,437,281 | 1,567,548,209 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,083 |
breitbart--2019-02-17--Stephen Miller George W Bushs Immigration Record Astonishing Betrayal of American People
| 2019-02-17T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Stephen Miller: George W. Bush's Immigration Record 'Astonishing Betrayal' of American People
|
On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” White House senior adviser Stephen Miller described former President George W. Bush’s record on immigration as an “astonishing betrayal.” Miller said, “As you know, when George Bush came into office, illegal immigration total doubled from 6 million to 12 million by the time he left office.” He added, “That represented an astonishing betrayal of the American people. I’m not gonna sit here today and tell you that George Bush defended this country on the southern border because he did not.”
|
Pam Key
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/c5-12dZ3m7E/
|
2019-02-17 15:13:04+00:00
| 1,550,434,384 | 1,567,548,209 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,121 |
breitbart--2019-02-25--Study Immigrant College Graduates Score Far Below US Graduates
| 2019-02-25T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Study: Immigrant College Graduates Score Far Below U.S. Graduates
|
The test data is important because business groups have displaced hundreds of thousands of American college graduates while hiring more than one million foreign graduates via the H-1B and other visa worker programs intended for high-skilled temporary foreign workers. Business advocates say the migrants are highly skilled. But the test shows that foreign graduates of foreign colleges score just 34 out of 100, while Americans score 67 on the 100 point scale. Foreign graduates of American colleges score at 56, or 16 percent lower than the American score. “Foreign-educated immigrants with a college or advanced degree perform so poorly that they score at the level of natives who have only a high school diploma,” says the report, which analyzed results from the Program for International Assessment of Adult Competencies test. However, the test of 8,000 people in the United States only includes 210 immigrants who received college degrees abroad, said Jason Richwine, the study’s author. But the fuzziness caused by that small number is countered by the huge disparity between the foreigners’ scores and the Americans’ score, he said. “The results are robust,” he said. The study could be expanded to include more people if the government-funded census and the American Community Survey asked immigrants where they earned their college degrees, he said. For now, the surveys only ask immigrants how many years of education they have earned, and those answers are unreliable, Richwine said. For example, immigrants may have earned credentials by spending several years in low-quality universities or high-quality universities, he said. There also may be some complicating factors, such as cheating, partly because many migrants come from cultures where academic credentials “make a difference between what they see as failure and success in life,” he added. Another complication is the distribution of scores, he said. For example, a national survey may hide a successful group of high scorers underneath a larger number of very low scores. Each problem may be more prevalent in some countries than in others, he said, so “an education credential [claimed by an immigrant] does not mean much because of how unreliable it turns into skills across countries.” Advocates for greater immigration say current immigrants have more credentials than immigrants from several years ago. But “we just don’t know that is true,” said Richwine. “Certainly, the census data shows that recent immigrants say they have more years of education. But to argue that the immigration pool is becoming substantially more skilled is way too premature.” The English language media in India has repeatedly discussed the skills issue, partly because many college graduate Indians wish to migrate to the United States, either as a visa worker or as legal immigrants. There are at least 500,000 Indian visa workers in U.S college jobs. The skill issue is also visible on websites created for Indian visa workers in the United States. Some of the sites include advertisements for “job support” services which allow unskilled Indian visa workers in American to do their U.S. jobs with the aid of online advice and work by skilled Indians in India. In 2016, India’s minister for “Human Resource Development” was transferred to a different job amid evidence that she inflated her educational qualifications. The difficulty of measuring the skills of “high skilled” immigrants is part of the growing fight over the H-1B outsourcing program, and the bipartisan push to remove “country caps” on the government’s annual allotment of valuable green cards to lower-wage visa workers. A bill would provide a fast track to green cards for at least 200,000 Indian H-1B workers — plus their spouses and children — and would make it more difficult for young Americans graduates to win starter jobs in the information technology sector. The authors of the Senate bill — S. 386 — are GOP Sen. Mike Lee and Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris. Their February 7 statement says “the bill has also been endorsed by Immigration Voice, Compete America Coalition, the Information Technology Industry Council, Google, Microsoft, The Heritage Foundation, La Raza, and many others.” The Senate co-sponsors of the outsourcing bill include Republicans and Democrats: The matching House bill is numbered H.R. 1044. It is being pushed by Colorado Republican Rep. Ken Busk and California Democratic Rep. Susan Lofgren. Business groups also say they need to import visa workers because there is a shortage of American professionals. However, data produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that there are 1.3 million Americans employed in telecommunications, data processing, Internet hosting services, and “other information services.” There are also 20 million Americans working in professional and technical services including two million people working in computer systems design, 1.4 million in consulting.
|
Neil Munro
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/ibLOW7Rph2A/
|
2019-02-25 23:39:42+00:00
| 1,551,155,982 | 1,567,547,347 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,143 |
breitbart--2019-03-11--Exclusive President Donald Trump on Immigration I Dont Want to Have Anyone Coming in Thats on
| 2019-03-11T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Exclusive — President Donald Trump on Immigration: ‘I Don’t Want to Have Anyone Coming in That’s on Welfare’
|
“I don’t want to have anyone coming in that’s on welfare,” Trump told Breitbart News in the more-than-40-minute interview in the Oval Office on Monday afternoon. “We have a problem, because we have politicians that are not strong, or they have bad intentions, or they want to get votes, because they think if they come in they’re going to vote Democrat, you know, for the most part.” Trump’s answer came in response to Breitbart News editor-in-chief Alexander Marlow citing a statistic from a report the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) published in December that over 60 percent of non-citizen families entering the United States end up on welfare. The report found that 63 percent of non-citizen households end up on welfare, whereas just 35 percent of native-born American households end up on welfare—a major disparity. The report also shows that in non-citizen households with children, welfare usage skyrockets to 79.6 percent. Trump added that while it is his belief that some industries need more workers brought in in various capacities, the Democrats and the left are pushing to bring anyone and everyone into the country regardless of the consequences. “They’ll take anybody into this country and we’re not allowing it, but because of the success of the country economically, some people say—I blame myself, but that’s a good blame not a bad blame—but because of the country’s success and you need workers here,” Trump said. “You do need workers. You have homes in Houston, and they can’t get people to build the homes—and lots of other places. But because of what’s happened, and because of the people coming up, they want them to come in and they don’t care how they come in.” From there, Trump added that he does not want people coming into the United States who are going to be dependent on welfare programs. “I don’t want people that need welfare,” Trump said. “We owe a lot of money. We’re taking care of everybody in the world’s military. But now as you know I got over $100 billion from NATO countries. But that’s not enough, that’s not enough, we’re paying for massive portions of NATO. We shouldn’t be paying for this. They should be paying their own way, and we can help them, but we shouldn’t be paying for—and by the way, here’s a beauty. We pay for their military defense and then they take advantage of us on trade in addition. It used to be in order to have the trade we take care of them—but they get us both ways.” He completed his thought in this portion of the interview by adding that it’s “no good” that the Democrats want to bring in people from other parts of the world who are dependent on welfare for decades. “But I don’t like the idea of people coming in and going on welfare for 50 years, and that’s what they want to be able to do—and it’s no good,” Trump said. This is the first of several stories to follow from this exclusive Breitbart News interview with President Trump in the Oval Office. Alexander Marlow is the Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart News, Matthew Boyle is the Washington Political Editor of Breitbart News, Amanda House is the Deputy Political Editor of Breitbart News, and Charlie Spiering is the Senior White House Correspondent for Breitbart News.
|
Alexander Marlow, Matthew Boyle, Amanda House, & Charlie Spiering
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/yTQsivXn2E0/
|
2019-03-11 22:58:44+00:00
| 1,552,359,524 | 1,567,546,679 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,218 |
breitbart--2019-03-30--Exclusive
| 2019-03-30T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Exclusive--Michelle Malkin to Trump: No More 'Empty Threats' on Immigration, Border
|
In an exclusive interview with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Daily, Malkin said Trump’s threats to close the U.S.-Mexico border to stop illegal immigration must be backed up with action, not just rhetoric. I don’t want to hear empty threats anymore about how he’s going to do what he should have done many, many, many months ago. The fact that you have a massive number now of … strangers bringing in children, tells you that the very magnet that he says he understands is causing this. The failure to just go ahead executively and fix the asylum system, proves him right on that and yet he’s not doing what he can do as president with his executive authority. [Emphasis added] Malkin said Trump should have the military at the southern border, asking rhetorically “Does he believe his own rhetoric or not?” More blame for the levels of illegal immigration the country is currently experiencing should be placed with elected Republicans, Malkin said, who failed to take any action on immigration while controlling the House and Senate for the first two years of Trump’s term. “Faux pro-borders Republicans … deserve a heck of a lot more scrutiny and condemnation for putting us in the situation that we’re in,” Malkin said. Trump, Malkin said, must be vigilant in changing immigration policy and statute: Here’s my fear, is that you know the conventional establishment talking point this week on immigration — even as these hordes of people are coming in unprecedented numbers — is ‘Oh, we got a few billion from the Pentagon for the fencing.’ And it just lulls the base into this false sense of hope that something is being done when we could have Congresspeople in Washington, themselves, putting pressure on Trump to exercise his inherent executive authority to actually do more than just put a few more dozen miles of physical barriers. And I’m not saying that we don’t need [a wall] but what needs to happen is that the policies need to change. [Emphasis added] As Breitbart News has chronicled, the U.S. is set to admit anywhere between one to 1.5 million illegal aliens this year. The Trump administration’s most recent expansion of the Catch and Release policy has resulted in the release of about 24,000 border crossers and illegal aliens in just two weeks. Simultaneously, experts project that at the current rate of illegal immigration, up to 500,000 illegal aliens could successfully cross into the country this year, undetected by Border Patrol. Republican voters rank deporting illegal aliens and ending illegal immigration as their top priority to ensure a better quality of life for themselves and their middle class families, the latest Pew Research Center survey revealed. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
|
John Binder
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/0c6UTJ09rZ0/
|
2019-03-30 00:52:24+00:00
| 1,553,921,544 | 1,567,544,635 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,224 |
breitbart--2019-03-30--WatchKris Kobach Wage Hikes via Less Immigration a Massive Win for Trump Working-Class American
| 2019-03-30T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Watch—Kris Kobach: Wage Hikes via Less Immigration a ‘Massive’ Win for Trump, Working-Class Americans
|
During a debate for IntelligenceSquared, Kobach touted Trump’s “Hire American” economy, which has delivered increased blue-collar and working-class wages by between 3.4 percent and four percent in the last 12 months. “By reducing illegal immigration, you drive up wages, especially in unskilled labor categories,” Kobach said. “Therefore, [blue-collar workers] have seen those wage gains, and [Trump] has delivered.” In terms of wages, in the last 12 months, we’ve seen a 3.4 percent increase in nominal wages. That’s extraordinary, the largest wage gains in the last 12 years. It is a massive achievement for the working, blue-collar voter, and that’s why blue-collar voters in exit polls voted 66 percent for Donald Trump in the last election. He’s the only one that can pull it off again. [Emphasis added] [The wage gains are] a direct result of his positions and his policies on his signature campaign issue, which of course is immigration. President Trump has done what no other presidential candidate has done in recent years, made that a centerpiece issue and has governed with that as a centerpiece issue. He has recognized that illegal immigration really does affect all of us. Every state is a border state now. [Emphasis added] Those wage hikes for America’s working and lower middle class and a populist-nationalist agenda are what must continue for Trump to capture states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan — as he did in 2016 — in the upcoming 2020 presidential election. “I don’t know if any Republican can do what Trump did in those blue-collar states [of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin] and break through the Rust Belt,” Kobach said. “The party, after Trump, we may be toast if we don’t find somebody who has his special sauce who can connect with voters in those three states.” Wage hikes for blue-collar and working-class Americans, though, are increasingly threatened by the record levels of illegal immigration coming across the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) mass release of border crossers and illegal aliens into the interior of the country in recent months. Unfettered illegal immigration — along with the country’s mass legal immigration policy, where more than 1.2 million mostly unskilled foreign nationals are added to the population every year to compete against Americans for jobs — has kept Americans’ wages stagnant and low for decades. Every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of American workers’ occupations reduces their weekly wages by about 0.5 percent, researcher Steven Camarotta has found. This means the average native-born American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by perhaps 8.5 percent because of current legal immigration levels — not factoring in the wage depression caused by illegal immigration. In a state like Florida, where immigrants make up about 25.4 percent of the labor force, American workers have their weekly wages reduced by perhaps more than 12.5 percent. In California, where immigrants make up 34 percent of the labor force, American workers’ weekly wages are reduced by potentially 17 percent. Likewise, every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of low-skilled U.S. occupations reduces wages by about 0.8 percent. Should 15 percent of low-skilled jobs be held by foreign-born workers, it would reduce the wages of native-born American workers by perhaps 12 percent. In 2017, foreign-born residents made up more than 17 percent of the total U.S. workforce, comprising about 27.4 million foreign workers who compete against American workers for jobs. In occupations that have been relieved by stricter immigration enforcement, like dairy farming, U.S. wages have risen and so have working conditions as employers seek to attract talent in a tight labor market. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
|
John Binder
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/g5_9O2osLAU/
|
2019-03-30 01:00:46+00:00
| 1,553,922,046 | 1,567,544,635 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,225 |
breitbart--2019-03-31--Robert Francis Beto ORourke El Paso Safe Because of Immigrants Asylum Seekers
| 2019-03-31T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Robert Francis 'Beto' O’Rourke: El Paso Safe Because of Immigrants, Asylum Seekers
|
In a speech to over 1000 supporters, O’Rourke drew a sharp contrast between his immigration policies and those of President Donald Trump, extolling the virtues of increased immigration and diversity as a unifying force. “With Ciudad Juarez we form the largest binational community in this hemisphere. And for 20 years running, we’ve been one of the safest cities in the United States of America,” the El Paso native declared. “We are safe not despite the fact that we are a city of immigrants and asylum seekers. We are safe because we are a city of immigrants and asylum seekers.” “We have learned not to fear our differences, but to respect and embrace them. We see the languages spoken in this community, the traditions, the cultures, as a strength for El Paso,” he added. O’Rourke’s remarks follow a threat by President Trump to shut down the Southern border, citing repeated failures by the Mexican government to assist the administration in preventing further South American caravans reaching the United States. The president also blasted Democrats for advocating “weak” immigration laws. “The DEMOCRATS have given us the weakest immigration laws anywhere in the World. Mexico has the strongest, & they make more than $100 Billion a year on the U.S. Therefore, CONGRESS MUST CHANGE OUR WEAK IMMIGRATION LAWS NOW, & Mexico must stop illegals from entering the U.S,” the president wrote on Twitter Friday morning. He continued: “Mexico has for many years made a fortune off of the U.S., far greater than Border Costs. If Mexico doesn’t immediately stop ALL illegal immigration coming into the United States [through] our Southern Border, I will be CLOSING the Border, or large sections of the Border, next week.” O’Rourke also criticized President Trump over family separations at the border and vowed to kill the policy if elected president. “Let us reunite every single one of those families that are still separated today,” O’Rourke said. “And let’s remember that every single one of us, including those who are just three or four blocks from here detained under the international bridge that connects us with Mexico behind chain-linked fence and barbed wire, that they are fellow human beings and deserved to be treated like our fellow human beings.” “We will find security not through walls, not through militarization, we will find security by focusing on our ports of entry,” he went on. “If we are really serious about security, we have a golden opportunity, Republicans, Independents, Democrats alike to work on comprehensive immigration reform, to rewrite this country’s immigration laws in our own image with our own values and in the best traditions of the United States of America.” O’Rourke delivered the speech at South El Paso Street, which is connected to Mexico by an international bridge.
|
Joshua Caplan
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/POHuJQuZWFU/
|
2019-03-31 00:33:50+00:00
| 1,554,006,830 | 1,567,544,548 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,356 |
breitbart--2019-05-15--Survey Only 2-in-15 Americans Aware of Soaring Illegal Immigration to US
| 2019-05-15T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Survey: Only 2-in-15 Americans Aware of Soaring Illegal Immigration to U.S.
|
The latest Harvard/Harris Poll reveals that when Americans are asked how many illegal aliens are arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, only about 13 percent answer correctly. Meanwhile, about 76 percent of Americans believe illegal immigration levels are vastly lower than they actually are. For example, there were nearly 100,000 border apprehensions in April, alone. This puts illegal immigration at the southern border on track to outpace every year of illegal immigration under former President Obama and take the U.S. back to Bush era levels. At current rates, experts project there to be 863,000 border apprehensions this Fiscal Year, though this only counts illegal aliens who are caught at the border and does not include those who successfully cross. Since Fiscal Year 2010, the number of border crossers and illegal aliens apprehended trying to enter the U.S. has been anywhere between 300,000 to 500,000. In the Harvard/Harris Poll, though, less than two-in-15 American voters correctly said there are between 250,000 to 500,000 border apprehensions each year. Meanwhile, more than three-in-four Americans incorrectly said there are between zero to 250,000 border apprehensions a year. Even among Republican voters, conservatives, and Trump supporters, a plurality of 35 percent incorrectly estimated that there are only 10,000 to 100,000 border apprehensions each year. When voters were told that there were more than 100,000 border apprehensions in the last month, the majority, about 52 percent, said they supported President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency at the southern border to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Another 48 percent said they oppose the national emergency. Nearly six-in-ten working class and lower middle class Americans support the national emergency, as well as almost 65 percent of American voters who live in rural communities. As Breitbart News reported, Republican voters, conservatives, and Trump supporters all rank building a border wall to stop illegal immigration and reducing legal immigration levels as their top priorities heading into the 2020 presidential election. For swing voters, building a border wall and reducing all immigration are the third and fourth top priorities, following stimulating jobs and passing an infrastructure bill. Every year, the U.S. admits about 1.2 million mostly low-skilled legal immigrants to compete against working and middle class Americans for jobs. The vast majority, about 70 percent, of legal immigration to the country is driven by the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. High levels of immigration, illegal and legal, put downward pressure on U.S. wages while redistributing about $500 billion in wealth away from America’s working and middle class and towards employers and new arrivals, research by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine has found. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
|
John Binder
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/EkqIiWnB58U/
|
2019-05-15 00:48:01+00:00
| 1,557,895,681 | 1,567,540,550 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,369 |
breitbart--2019-05-30--Donald Trump Declares He Will Increase Tariffs on Mexico Until Illegal Immigration Remedied
| 2019-05-30T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Donald Trump Declares He Will Increase Tariffs on Mexico Until Illegal Immigration Remedied
|
“On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP,” President Trump wrote in a Thursday night tweet. On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP. The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied,.. “The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied,” the president said and continued in a subsequent post, “….at which time the Tariffs will be removed. Details from the White House to follow.” Minutes later the White House released the following statement from President Trump: As everyone knows, the United States of America has been invaded by hundreds of thousands of people coming through Mexico and entering our country illegally. This sustained influx of illegal aliens has profound consequences on every aspect of our national life—overwhelming our schools, overcrowding our hospitals, draining our welfare system, and causing untold amounts of crime. Gang members, smugglers, human traffickers, and illegal drugs and narcotics of all kinds are pouring across the Southern Border and directly into our communities. Thousands of innocent lives are taken every year as a result of this lawless chaos. It must end NOW! Mexico’s passive cooperation in allowing this mass incursion constitutes an emergency and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States. Mexico has very strong immigration laws and could easily halt the illegal flow of migrants, including by returning them to their home countries. Additionally, Mexico could quickly and easily stop illegal aliens from coming through its southern border with Guatemala. For decades, the United States has suffered the severe and dangerous consequences of illegal immigration. Sadly, Mexico has allowed this situation to go on for many years, growing only worse with the passage of time. From a safety, national security, military, economic, and humanitarian standpoint, we cannot allow this grave disaster to continue. The current state of affairs is profoundly unfair to the American taxpayer, who bears the extraordinary financial cost imposed by large-scale illegal migration. Even worse is the terrible and preventable loss of human life. Some of the most deadly and vicious gangs on the planet operate just across our border and terrorize innocent communities. Mexico must step up and help solve this problem. We welcome people who come to the United States legally, but we cannot allow our laws to be broken and our borders to be violated. For years, Mexico has not treated us fairly—but we are now asserting our rights as a sovereign Nation. To address the emergency at the Southern Border, I am invoking the authorities granted to me by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Accordingly, starting on June 10, 2019, the United States will impose a 5 percent Tariff on all goods imported from Mexico. If the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico, to be determined in our sole discretion and judgment, the Tariffs will be removed. If the crisis persists, however, the Tariffs will be raised to 10 percent on July 1, 2019. Similarly, if Mexico still has not taken action to dramatically reduce or eliminate the number of illegal aliens crossing its territory into the United States, Tariffs will be increased to 15 percent on August 1, 2019, to 20 percent on September 1, 2019, and to 25 percent on October 1, 2019. Tariffs will permanently remain at the 25 percent level unless and until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory. Workers who come to our country through the legal admissions process, including those working on farms, ranches, and in other businesses, will be allowed easy passage. If Mexico fails to act, Tariffs will remain at the high level, and companies located in Mexico may start moving back to the United States to make their products and goods. Companies that relocate to the United States will not pay the Tariffs or be affected in any way. Over the years, Mexico has made massive amounts of money in its dealings with the United States, and this includes the tremendous number of jobs leaving our country. Should Mexico choose not to cooperate on reducing unlawful migration, the sustained imposition of Tariffs will produce a massive return of jobs back to American cities and towns. Remember, our great country has been the “piggy bank” from which everybody wants only to TAKE. The difference is that now we are firmly and forcefully standing up for America’s interests. We have confidence that Mexico can and will act swiftly to help the United States stop this long-term, dangerous, and deeply unfair problem. The United States has been very good to Mexico for many years. We are now asking that Mexico immediately do its fair share to stop the use of its territory as a conduit for illegal immigration into our country. The cartels and coyotes are having a greater and greater impact on the Mexican side of our Southern Border. This is a dire threat that must be decisively eliminated. Billions of dollars are made, and countless lives are ruined, by these ruthless and merciless criminal organizations. Mexico must bring law and order to its side of the border. Democrats in Congress are fully aware of this horrible situation and yet refuse to help in any way, shape, or form. This is a total dereliction of duty. The migrant crisis is a calamity that must now be solved—and can easily be solved—in Congress. Our broken asylum laws, court system, catch-and-release, visa lottery, chain migration, and many other loopholes can all be promptly corrected. When that happens, the measures being announced today can be more readily reduced or removed. The United States is a great country that can no longer be exploited due to its foolish and irresponsible immigration laws. For the sake of our people, and for the sake of our future, these horrendous laws must be changed now. At the same time, Mexico cannot allow hundreds of thousands of people to pour over its land and into our country—violating the sovereign territory of the United States. If Mexico does not take decisive measures, it will come at a significant price. We therefore look forward to, and appreciate, the swift and effective actions that we hope Mexico will immediately install. As President of the United States, my highest duty is the defense of the country and its citizens. A nation without borders is not a nation at all. I will not stand by and allow our sovereignty to be eroded, our laws to be trampled, or our borders to be disrespected anymore.
|
Michelle Moons
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/jUWolF4J1CM/
|
2019-05-30 23:58:58+00:00
| 1,559,275,138 | 1,567,539,660 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,595 |
breitbart--2019-08-08--Poll Majority of Blacks Hispanics Support Anti-Illegal Immigration 2020 Candidates
| 2019-08-08T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Poll: Majority of Blacks, Hispanics Support Anti-Illegal Immigration 2020 Candidates
|
The latest Harvard/Harris Poll reveals that about 70 percent, or seven-in-ten, U.S. voters said they would be more likely to support a 2020 presidential candidate who stands for “strengthing our border to reduce illegal immigration” to the country. Only 30 percent of U.S. voters said they would be less likely to support a 2020 presidential candidate who supported reducing illegal immigration. Support for reducing illegal immigration is vastly popularly among swing voters, about 69 percent of whom said they would be more likely to back a candidate like President Trump in the 2020 election because of his stance against illegal immigration. Similarly, voters across racial lines said they would be more likely to support a 2020 presidential candidate that wants to reduce illegal immigration. Roughly 63 percent of black Americans and 61 percent of Hispanic Americans said they would be more likely to support an anti-illegal immigration presidential candidate. More than seven-in-ten working and lower-middle-class Americans, as well as 71 percent of suburban voters, said the same. As Breitbart News reported, the Harvard/Harris Poll found that nearly seven-in-ten swing voters, along with 64 percent of all U.S. voters, said they are less likely to support a 2020 presidential candidate who supports more immigration to the country. The Washington, DC-imposed mass immigration policy — whereby more than 1.5 million mostly low-skilled foreign workers are admitted to the U.S. to compete against Americans every year — has been a boon to corporate executives, Wall Street, big business, and multinational conglomerates, as every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of an occupation’s labor force reduces Americans’ hourly wages by 0.4 percent. Every one percent increase in the immigrant workforce reduces Americans’ overall wages by 0.8 percent. Currently, there are anywhere between 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living across the country, the majority of which live in California, New York, Florida, and Texas. The poll surveyed 2,214 registered American voters online between July 31 and August 1. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
|
John Binder
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/91rKkUNrKiE/
|
2019-08-08 01:31:44+00:00
| 1,565,242,304 | 1,567,534,565 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,615 |
breitbart--2019-08-09--Donald Trump ICE Deportation Raids a Good Deterrent to Illegal Immigration
| 2019-08-09T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Donald Trump: ICE Deportation Raids a 'Good Deterrent' to Illegal Immigration
|
“This serves as a very good deterrent, if people come into our country illegally, they’re going out, they’re not coming illegally and staying,” Trump said. The president commented on the ICE raids as he left the White House on Friday for a series of fundraisers in New York. Altogether 680 illegal immigrants working at a Mississippi food plant were detained by ICE authorities on Wednesday as part of massive enforcement sweep. Critics immediately raged against the president, after the media featured children in the United States who were separated from their parents during the raid. But Trump defended it as part of the process. “You have to go in, you can’t let anybody know,” he said. He said the raids would send a strong message to people coming into the country illegally. “We have bad laws, they may get in, although we’re being very tough, but they may get in, but it doesn’t matter, because they’re going out,” he said.
|
Charlie Spiering
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/kcYuY93Pa6E/
|
2019-08-09 22:55:14+00:00
| 1,565,405,714 | 1,567,534,488 |
society
|
immigration
|
71,646 |
breitbart--2019-08-09--Watch Joe Biden Vows Flood of Immigration If Elected
| 2019-08-09T00:00:00 |
breitbart
|
Watch: Joe Biden Vows Flood of Immigration If Elected
|
In a speech to the Asian and Latino Coalition PAC, Biden promised to increase the level of legal immigration to the country beyond the roughly 1.2 million legal immigrants that are admitted every year, booming the foreign-born population to an unprecedented 45 million — a 108-year record high. Specifically, Biden said the U.S. can “in a heartbeat” import another two million immigrants today. We could afford to take in a heartbeat another two million people. The idea that a country of 330 million people is cannot absorb people who are in desperate need … is absolutely bizarre … I would also move to increase the total number of immigrants able to come to the United States. [Emphasis added] In addition to an increase in legal immigration levels, Biden said his national immigration plan would ensure that all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living across the U.S. receive amnesty and a pathway to American citizenship. Likewise, Biden said it is “immigration” that has “built this country,” reiterating the claim that the U.S. is a “nation of immigrants,” calling it “a fact.” Biden’s comments come after the latest Harvard/Harris Poll finds that swing voters by a majority, as well as nearly every other demographic group, say they are less likely to support a 2020 presidential candidate who wants more illegal and legal immigration to the U.S. Currently, the nation’s Washington, DC-imposed mass legal and illegal immigration policy — whereby at least 1.5 million unskilled foreign nationals are admitted to the U.S. every year — is a boon to corporate executives, Wall Street, big business, and multinational corporations, as America’s working and middle class have their wealth redistributed to the country’s top earners through wage stagnation. Research by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has discovered that immigration to the country shifts about $500 billion in wages away from working and middle-class Americans toward new arrivals and economic elites. Similarly, research by Steven Camarotta has found that every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of an occupation’s labor force reduces Americans’ hourly wages by 0.4 percent. Every one percent increase in the immigrant workforce reduces Americans’ overall wages by 0.8 percent. In the last decade alone, the U.S. has admitted ten million legal immigrants, forcing American workers to compete against a growing population of low-wage foreign workers. Meanwhile, if legal immigration continues, there will be 69 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S. by 2060 and a total population of more than 404 million residents. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
|
John Binder
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/57U6O3zX5Fg/
|
2019-08-09 20:43:53+00:00
| 1,565,397,833 | 1,567,534,488 |
society
|
immigration
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.